Homosexual marriage

[The Gaffer]

I love the Netherlands too; been there a lot in the past few years.

A Dutch colleague explained why it appears to people who have never been there (or never been outside of Amsterdam) to be ultra-liberal: it is in fact a very conservative place. So conservative that they would rather change the law than have a law that people just ignored.

Another Dutch friend, who lives in the UK, nearly had a brain explosion when I told him that it is technically illegal to put nappies in the rubbish (you are not allowed to dispose of human waste in domestic bins). There is no alternative, so into the bin it goes. He couldn't compute that everyone just ignores the law.

[Rían]

Y'know, Gaffer, as you said, it all comes down to harm. And a person's conception of what is harmful and what is not harmful comes down to their own particular worldview. Things don't come labelled with an "H" for "harmful" and an "OK" for ok. Each person makes their own decision, and decisions differ. Given my worldview, it makes sense that any marriage outside of one man/one woman is harmful. Given your worldview, it doesn't.

I still think each person should go by their own opinion on the matter, but they better put a lot of thought into it, because it's a very important aspect of a person's life.

And an irritated aside - how the liberal media is portraying the proposed amendment that says marriage in the US is between one man and one woman - they keep calling it the "amendment to ban gay marriage". Sorry, folks, read the writing - it is an amendment to define marriage in the US as between one man and one woman. It may have been started in reaction to people trying to make homosexual marriages, but it no more bans gay marriage specifically than it bans polyamorous marriages specifically.

[The Gaffer]

Listing the disingenuities in that statement:

- it doesn't come down to worldview: I don't think that you really believe that; you believe they are going to hell, don't you? I don't believe it either; I believe that harm can be established with pretty rigorous and objective criteria, none of which have ever been met by any "harm" I've seen put forward by the anti-gay argument.

- Liberal media: HA! I've been to about a dozen different countries, read their papers and watched their telly, and your media is the most right-wing agenda-slurping I've seen.

- "defining marriage as being between a man and a woman" is a legalese get-out so your side can claim not to be getting at gays specifically. I am sure that you personally are most concerned about preventing me from making an honest marrow of my beloved vegetable, but please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that's what the proposed legislation is about.

Sorry to be blunt, but, as you say, this IS important, and causes lots of harm.

[Rían]

Bluntness is welcome, Gaffer - it's flaming hate that's useless, IMO.

Could you clear up a few things I don't understand in your post?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

- it doesn't come down to worldview: I don't think that you really believe that; ...

Why would you say that? Of course I believe it! What makes you think I don't? I thought I explained it very clearly; what made you think I didn't believe it?

... you believe they are going to hell, don't you?

Who, homosexuals? I imagine some are and some aren't, just like heterosexuals.

I don't believe it either; I believe that harm can be established with pretty rigorous and objective criteria, none of which have ever been met by any "harm" I've seen put forward by the anti-gay argument.

Your criteria is established by your worldview. If you REALLY, SINCERELY thought that a God existed who communicated to His creation via some writings, then you would take them into account; as it is, you don't believe this, so you think that you need to use other measurements.

- Liberal media: HA! I've been to about a dozen different countries, read their papers and watched their telly, and your media is the most right-wing agenda-slurping I've seen.

Well, maybe you don't see the same stuff I do!

- "defining marriage as being between a man and a woman" is a legalese get-out so your side can claim not to be getting at gays specifically.

That may be the agenda of some on "my side" of the issue, I daresay (and although they may be on my side of the issue, they're not on my side if they're motivated by hate); some of the people on "my side" of the issue make me sick, as do some of the people on "your side" of the issue. All I can do is speak for myself, and I'm not against gays. If polygamous couples were the first to really push hard to add polygamy to the marriage definition, then the fight would be "against" polygamists in the same sense, IMO.

I am sure that you personally are most concerned about preventing me from making an honest marrow of my beloved vegetable, but please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that's what the proposed legislation is about.

As far as I'm concerned, and the people I know are concerned, that IS what the legislation is ALL about - codifying a definition of marriage that we think is best for everyone involved. Period. And groups who don't agree with that definition will support THEIR opinion on the definition and try to codify what THEY think is best for everyone involved, too.

Now some people may be using it to shower their hate on gays, but I'm not, and the people I know aren't, because we don't hate gays. IMO, they're people, just like you and me and everyone else. But marriage definitions, IMO, shouldn't depend on who is nice or not. Marriage definitions should depend on what a person thinks is best for society, esp. the more vulnerable members, who in this situation are the children.

Hateful people are on both sides, sadly. I'm not one of them, nor are the people I know that think marriage is one man/one woman.

[Rían]

I still can't get over your hell statement - after everything I've written, Gaffer, do you really, seriously believe that I think all homosexuals are going to hell? I sure hope not! Wow! What a totally wrong conception you have of me, if that's the case!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And an irritated aside - how the liberal media is portraying the proposed amendment that says marriage in the US is between one man and one woman - they keep calling it the "amendment to ban gay marriage". Sorry, folks, read the writing - it is an amendment to define marriage in the US as between one man and one woman.

its a bold faced political strategy to pander to the extreme right wing and the religious zealots and the anti gay crowd. they know very well it will never ever pass. But hey its the last thing they can think of to whip up support for republicans when nothing else is working. Lets hate on the gays. That seems to get everyone behind us right?

Well I think its a matter of time before more and more people recognize this strategy for the naked politically motivated discrimination that it is. I think its simply a matter of time before the states fall one by one on this issue till we are all looking at each other some day and saying "my god did the majority of the population really attempt to BAN gay marriage back in 2006? God that wasnt that long ago at all..."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

*sniggers* If you intend to imply that the Netherlands are the scene of imploding societies and hedonism you may have been reading too much of Inked's links than is good for you.

There's a lot that can be said about the Netherlands, but not that.

I'm thinking of a few too many things being legal there for my taste, but to each his own.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And an irritated aside - how the liberal media is portraying the proposed amendment that says marriage in the US is between one man and one woman - they keep calling it the "amendment to ban gay marriage". Sorry, folks, read the writing - it is an amendment to define marriage in the US as between one man and one woman. It may have been started in reaction to people trying to make homosexual marriages, but it no more bans gay marriage specifically than it bans polyamorous marriages specifically.

An ammendment that appears as if it will fail, even with a republican-dominated government. There's hope for the future.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

You can't go (back) again. Faulkner.

Yes you can. And I predict that eventually, we will. Though they'll be a lot of kicking and screaming.

[TreebeardQuickbeam]

Marriage throughout History until now has been about male-female procreative unions. Statistics show that when procreation is contracepted, and when cohabitation is rampant, the tendency to use another person for pleasure and discard them when you're tierd of them increases. This is why Homosexual unions are open unions-allowing for multiple partners and heartbreak after heartbreak. This is why Gays have a high incidence of suicide, and gays on average have a shorter lifespan. Marriages that are not contraceptive have lower divorce rates statistically. Divorce rates go up when contraception is used or cohabitation has occurred outside of marriage. Marriage recognizes that there is a purpose for sex beyond satisfying unbridled lust. The fact that you have to contracept to prevent pregnancy is an indication of one of those purposes. The other purpose of sex beyond procreation is to give oneself to one's spouse in an act of self giving that is also truly life-giving. Homosexual unions are closed to the gift of life, and therefore the procreative potential of the sexual act cannot be realized in such a union because there is no sexual complimentarity between the two persons. You cannot give yourself as a gift to another if you are merely using them for your own benefit until you get tierd of them, and the rampant promiscuity prevalent in many homosexual unions doesn't demonstrate a loving, committed relationship where the couple are willing to make sacrifices for one another until death. It bespeaks a relationship that has only one purpose: pleasure for me until you bore me. Infatuation can be mistaken for true Love, but real Love is a gift of self. Giving oneself entirely to another means in hard times as well as in good times. I believe that clause is written into the wedding vows, traditionally. Further, there are people who have recovered from homosexual orientations and had families. Genetic has gotten to be like the insanity plea-its a way of saying it's not my fault-love me or leave me. If someone had a predisposition genetically to pedophillia I don't think people would be as accepting, although there are some dutch scientists who think fathers should unite with their children. Further, in our supposedly tolerant society, Tolerance has become an oxymoron. If I have a position on an Issue, and lots of other people agree, you're tolerant only if you agree with me. If you dare to disagree I'll start calling you names. That kind of tolerance is a blooming double-standard.

[Insidious Rex]

So by your logic should we be banning birth control too?

[frodosampippinmerry]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So by your logic should we be banning birth control too?

yess

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I wouldn't go so far as that, fspm. I do believe that birth control is wrong, but I don't think that, as a Catholic, I can merely legislate Catholic morality upon the populace as a whole. (I would legislate monarchy upon the populace as a whole if I had haffa chance, though!) Certain things can be legislated (such as murder, theft, abuse of workers, and, I think, adultery). But we have to remember St. Paul's words "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." It is not the job of the government to try to save the souls of its citizens, but to provide for their (primarily temporal) wellbeing. Each of us has to strive to bring himself to heaven; as regards others, all we do is to lead by example, charitably discuss the issues with them, and pray.

[frodosampippinmerry]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I wouldn't go so far as that, fspm. I do believe that birth control is wrong, but I don't think that, as a Catholic, I can merely legislate Catholic morality upon the populace as a whole. (I would legislate monarchy upon the populace as a whole if I had haffa chance, though!) Certain things can be legislated (such as murder, theft, abuse of workers, and, I think, adultery). But we have to remember St. Paul's words "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." It is not the job of the government to try to save the souls of its citizens, but to provide for their (primarily temporal) wellbeing. Each of us has to strive to bring himself to heaven; as regards others, all we do is to lead by example, charitably discuss the issues with them, and pray.

First of all, It was never said the Government should be legistlating morality except in response to an inapropriate conclusion drawn regarding Treebeard's statements. He said that Statistically, it is a proven fact that Contraception is bad for marriage and relationships between spouses. This is not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of Statistical research, and if itr confirms what the Church has been saying, then people really ought to be informed. That aside, the fact is that a government has power because God gives it power. A government has to decide what's best for people who are unable to make that choice for themselves. That's why pedophillia is illegal, and incidently, there are a few crackpots out there that are starting to talk about legalizing pedophillia. You can dismiss it now, but the same discussion was being had in the margins of society 50 years ago regarding homosexuality. If you think the government shouldn't legistlate morality, why don't we take it a step further. Who is the Government to legistlate that I can't take drugs, or steal or commit Murder? Where does the government get off to telling me what to do. Who does the Government think they are, these are moral issues too. What justifies this picking and Choosing which immoral activities to ban and which not to? If you let one moral issue slip, how long will it be before they all go and complete lawlessness, anarchy, and Chaos reign? Your conclusion that Government should only legalize some forms of immorality and not others is a very convenient double standard that will take society down the slippery slope to anarchy and eventual self destruction at their own hands. The government has to legistlate morality because some people don't care how they live and how it affects others arround them. The things you call catholic doctrine were originally held by the majority of people in every religion as morally prohibative. Catholics aren't the only ones that believe homosexuality and contraception are wrong either. One of the reasons the Muslims hate us is they see us as a cesspool of immorality. Catholics and Muslims agree that sexual immorality includes cohabitation outside of marriage regardless of the Gender of the couple involved. Likewise, any Jew seriously practicing their faith would also agree that they are wrong. There are apparently still threads left in society that believe these things are wrong, but they are too busy letting pressure grooups intimidate them with namecalling. It's interesting, though, that the people who cry out loudest for the right to think, do and say what they want are all too often the first ones to cram their viewpoints down other people's throats when those people disagree with them. I could cite some examples, but this response is already too long as it is, but it's as if they are the only ones with rights and we have no right to disagree.

[Rían]

(Hey, treebeardquickbeam and frodo&co, please put some paragraphs in your posts!)

[frodosampippinmerry]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(Hey, treebeardquickbeam and frodo&co, please put some paragraphs in your posts!)

I would if I knew how, but no one e-mailed us a copy of the instructions

[Rían]

Just hit the enter key a few times to put in a paragraph and a blank line

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by frodosampippinmerry

He said that Statistically, it is a proven fact that Contraception is bad for marriage and relationships between spouses.

First: prove this. You provide no sources whatsoever. Second: Even if contraception is “bad� for marriage (whatever that means) are you saying we should illegalize ANYTHING that shows a statistical significance of being “bad� for marriage? And what of all those millions of couples who use contraception and are happily married?

That aside, the fact is that a government has power because God gives it power.

And here your outlook on church and state have fatefully collided. You can not legislate based on this opinion you realize.

That's why pedophillia is illegal

Pedophilia isn’t illegal. Sexually abusing children is. Because it HARMS the children. The children are being harmed without the ability to give consent. Adults who use contraception are doing no such thing.

Who is the Government to legistlate that I can't take drugs, or steal or commit Murder? Where does the government get off to telling me what to do. Who does the Government think they are, these are moral issues too. What justifies this picking and Choosing which immoral activities to ban and which not to?

And the answer of course is HARM. And the right to liberty and justice and life. Quite clearly, murdering someone impinges enormously on your right to live. You are forcefully taking away the ultimate right from someone without their consent. Free murder cannot be allowed in a society that hopes to remain intact or else collapse is imminent (everyone will be killed). Contraception does NOT impose anything forcefully on anyone. It is done by choice. And it is done so that we don’t end up with much more awful choices later like abortion or neglected children. Now are you saying you would rather have abortion and child neglect and abuse rife in our society if it means no contraception? If your answer is just don’t have sex unless you want a child well how in the world do you legislate that?

Your conclusion that Government should only legalize some forms of immorality and not others is a very convenient double standard that will take society down the slippery slope to anarchy and eventual self destruction at their own hands.

Which is why you don’t legislate based on any one persons “morality�. You legislate based on basic rights and you balance freedom of expression with freedom from immediate and significant harm.

The government has to legistlate morality because some people don't care how they live and how it affects others arround them.

How does contraception affect you exactly? Do people force you to use it? What you are demanding here is a theocracy. Are you sure you want that? It didn’t work to well in places like Iran and Taliban run Afghanistan. Are you sure you want to look to them as the basis for how to set up a government?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by frodosampippinmerry

First of all, It was never said the Government should be legistlating morality except in response to an inapropriate conclusion drawn regarding Treebeard's statements.

But the point is, it was said.

He said that Statistically, it is a proven fact that Contraception is bad for marriage and relationships between spouses. This is not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of Statistical research, and if itr confirms what the Church has been saying, then people really ought to be informed. That aside, the fact is that a government has power because God gives it power. A government has to decide what's best for people who are unable to make that choice for themselves. That's why pedophillia is illegal, and incidently, there are a few crackpots out there that are starting to talk about legalizing pedophillia. You can dismiss it now, but the same discussion was being had in the margins of society 50 years ago regarding homosexuality. If you think the government shouldn't legistlate morality, why don't we take it a step further. Who is the Government to legistlate that I can't take drugs, or steal or commit Murder?

These are matters of temporal wellbeing, not of morality. (Most) illegal drugs are rather bad for your health. If you murder, someone must be murdered, which is bad for them.

Where does the government get off to telling me what to do. Who does the Government think they are, these are moral issues too. What justifies this picking and Choosing which immoral activities to ban and which not to?

Again, which are clearly related to the temporal wellbeing of a person.

Your conclusion that Government should only legalize some forms of immorality and not others is a very convenient double standard that will take society down the slippery slope to anarchy and eventual self destruction at their own hands.

No, I have one standrad as to what should or should not be illegalised: whether or not it is clearly related to the temporal wellbeing of the person. That's why we have traffic laws; it's not immoral to drive without a seat belt, but it is dangerous.

The things you call catholic doctrine were originally held by the majority of people in every religion as morally prohibative.

I think not. Pederasty was widely accepted in the ancient world, and even divinely sanctioned, for instance in the cult of Ganymede. I don't have any reason to believe that contraception was considered immoral by the ancient world, except the Jews and Muslims.

Likewise, any Jew seriously practicing their faith would also agree that they are wrong.

Depends on what kind. I believe that Reform Jews do not consider pre-marital sex to be immoral.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I wouldn't go so far as that, fspm. I do believe that birth control is wrong, but I don't think that, as a Catholic, I can merely legislate Catholic morality upon the populace as a whole. (I would legislate monarchy upon the populace as a whole if I had haffa chance, though!) Certain things can be legislated (such as murder, theft, abuse of workers, and, I think, adultery). But we have to remember St. Paul's words "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." It is not the job of the government to try to save the souls of its citizens, but to provide for their (primarily temporal) wellbeing. Each of us has to strive to bring himself to heaven; as regards others, all we do is to lead by example, charitably discuss the issues with them, and pray.

I agree with you Gwaimir. I have a different approach than you, but I agree with you and St. Paul - we must work our own salvation. It's the government's job to protect its citizens from physical hardship. Spiritual hardship is up to us.

Originally Posted by frodosampippinmerry

First of all, It was never said the Government should be legistlating morality except in response to an inapropriate conclusion drawn regarding Treebeard's statements. He said that Statistically, it is a proven fact that Contraception is bad for marriage and relationships between spouses. This is not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of Statistical research, and if itr confirms what the Church has been saying, then people really ought to be informed.

I call bull crap. Where is a link to a peer-reviewed study with a statistically significant sample size to back up your statements?


I didn't read any of the block paragraph posts, but if you click the "Edit" button and add some paragraph breaks (as explained by the lovely RÃ*an), then I will.