Hmmm, a day after Bush mentions it, this comes out... Vatican slams same-sex marriage http://www.msnbc.com/news/946400.asp?0cv=CB10 VATICAN CITY, July 31 — The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was “gravely immoral” and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive. The Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America. “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family,” the document said. “Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” The Vatican document, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” sets out a battle plan for politicians when confronted with laws or proposed legislation giving homosexuals the same rights as married heterosexuals. GAY ADOPTION DENOUNCED It also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental “obstacles” because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father. “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development,” it said. The document says Catholic politicians have a “moral duty” to publicly oppose laws granting recognition to homosexual unions and to vote against them if proposals are put to a vote in legislatures. If the laws are already on the books, politicians must speak out against them, work to repeal them and try to limit their impact on society, it said. “To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral,” the document said. The document doesn’t provide for specific penalties for Catholics who fail to oppose such laws, saying only that the lawmakers had a “moral duty” to vote against them. The Vatican said its guidelines were not only intended for Catholic lawmakers but for non-Christians and everyone “committed to promoting and defending the common good of society” since the issue concerned natural moral law, not just Church doctrine.
Twhy77, A couple things. Please try to limit the number of posts you make in a row. A couple of other posters have done this also and it makes it hard for discussion to continue because your points become so segmented. I don't agree with the idea of a home, necessarily. We should strive for a good home for every child. However, if you want to legislate based on religion, you have to allow the same for Islamic countries. Other denominations have different ideas about ideal families. We can't legislate based on that. I know good parents that are gay. They have a very loving home and beautiful child. You can't say gay parents are bad just because they're homosexual.
goophers -- Hmmm...good question. I think the key difference between gay marriages and other possible permutations is that acceptance of homosexuals is reaching something of a critical mass in our country. It seems to be an idea whose time has come. Polygamy, on the other hand, has never had any kind of mainstream acceptance in our culture, nor does there appear to be any groups clamoring for its legitimization. There have been a few scattered court cases, but these have never mobilized large numbers of people to take action for the cause. I don't think there's any way to guarantee a court wouldn't attempt to legalize it, but I'm not sure that makes it anything other than the red herring it is for many of those opposed to gay marriage. Also, while I respect your example of men who have mistresses and people who are in several relationships at once, I don't think these people are candidates for polygamy. Can you imagine a man sitting down with his wife and mistress to discuss marrying both of them? If he came out of that session with all his body parts intact, he'd be a lucky man indeed. From what I can tell, polygamy is generally undertaken by a very small number of people with religious reasons for it (ironically enough). I have a hard time imagining it appealing to large groups of the population. As far as incest (I assume you mean between consenting adults), I can't imagine that it would ever be legal. Obviously, there will always be the issue of genetic abnormalities in the children. And I think it would be legally impossible to say that sterile incestuous couples can marry, while all other incestuous couples cannot. Not to mention, there is zero support for something like this.
Sorry guys, I can't support civil unions. I've got my duties. I'll try not to do the whole respond to everyones posts again, but I'm probably going to be away from the computer until tommorow if you guys want to bash on me. Direct any comments towards the Vatican's decree and my answer will be in there.
Whatever. For someone so uptight about the definition of a word (marriage), here's how the dictionary defines tolerance: sympathy for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own. Here's the final word from someone much wiser than you & I: Mr. Garrison: Look, this kind of behavior should not be acceptable from a teacher! Mr. Slave: Yeah, Jesus Christ. Man 6: But the mu-se-um tells us to be to-le-rant Man 3: [stands up and raises his arms] Yes. The mu-se-um. Man 7: [stands up and raises his arms] The mu-se-um tells us. Mr. Garrison: Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! If you had to like it, it'd be called the Museum of Acceptance! [the audience looks on] "Tolerate" means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off! Jesus Tapdancing Christ!
Mrs. JB & Goophers, re: incest If you check back to the 1st or 2nd page of this thread, I posted statutes from Arizona & Wisconsin that specifically allow for 1st cousins to marry, given that a doctor has certified that 1 or both of the people are sterile/infertile. I'm sure this is the case in other states as well.
Check back to the first page?!? I don't have all day here . So first cousins is legal? I guess I was thinking brother/sister kind of incest in my example (ewwwwwww). I'm assuming that is still illegal in all states and first cousins is as close as it gets. Thanks for the clarification, Buck.
I believe HP has already closed the case. He has explained it perfectly enough. The governmental view of marriage is separate from a belief system's view of marriage. From the government's perspective, a couple can be considered married without ever having a "church" wedding or they can be considered unmarried even with a "church" wedding. The governmental view concerns financial support for a family, while the ceremonial reasons are for accountability to community and to their beliefs. (If it were only for those two, why have a ceremony at all? Just have a "handshake" agreement.)
I think the the crux of what you're saying is a non-issue for me. Popularity does not equate to what is right, else gay marriages wouldn't be allowed anytime soon, slavery would've lasted longer in the South, etc. Gays are a minority of the population, as are polygamists. It seems like you're arguing that gays have certain rights, but polygamists are a non-issue because there are less of them. About the mistress example, haven't you known anyone that knew about a mistress but didn't do anything about it in order to maintain their way of life, or they still loved the person? I've seen both. I'm friends with others who are not married but are seriously dating more than one person at one time and it is known by all. It was so strange to me at first, and still is, and apparently would be to you as well. However, it is out there.
I haven't read many homophobic or intolerant responses here. Just because you don't support same-sex marriage doesn't make you a gay basher. I support civil rights for all people and consider myself very liberal on many issues. I have gay and lesbian friends and could care less what goes on in their consentual bedroom. I love them and think they have good hearts. However, I believe marriage should be between a husband and a wife. Two husbands don't define a marriage. Two wives also fail to make the union. It is about gender. A husband is a man. A wife is a woman. I believe in my heart that marriage should be a union between two opposite-gendered members of the human race. This does not make me anti-gay rights. Not at all. Two males cannot mate and produce offspring. Neither can two females. I believe we should reserve matrimony for two opposite-gendered mates. Matrimony is defined as being a state of husband and wife.
So? They have fewer rights? I don't get this response. There are fewer homos than heteros. Does that make gay rights a non-issue?
No, she's saying that if you legalized polygamy, you wouldn't have this sudden huge spike in multiple partner marriages, outside of those who already practice it.
No, they don't have fewer rights. I just don't forsee the courts taking up the cause of polygamy in the next few years because it hasn't reached the critical mass that homosexual acceptance has. Again, I believe the entire issue of polygamy, incest etc... is a red herring. This debate is about homosexual marriage. IF it is legalized and then polygamists start clamoring for the right to be legally married we, as a nation, will debate it. But at this point, everyone seems to be getting far ahead of the issue at hand. This mass freak-out over polygamy (does anyone here even know a polygamist?) has me completely baffled.
I think the idea here is that once you throw the walls down, you can't put them back up for anyone else. If you're saying this is a fundamental right that can't be trampeled on...then ultimately you'll have others challenge it for different reasons. Like incest laws...or polygamy laws.
I said in my earlier post that there wouldn't be a sudden huge spike. I wonder about how popular it would eventually be. I think it was pretty widespread in ancient times. Lots has changed, but I think there's a good chance it could gain popularity (but still be at low levels) over time. Mrs. JB already said she would accept polygamy with gay marriage, and I have no cause for disagreement with that. I was trying to see if there was a way I could reconcile one being legal and the other not, but no one has come up with an answer to that. Accepting polygamy seems like we could end up with marriage meaning less than it already does and all sorts of strange families would pop up here and there. Maybe that'd be ok, and some countries apparently allow polygamy. But I guess I might be polygaphobic. Anyone know the legal reasons for outlawing polygamy?
Mrs. JB, But it wouldn't have to take the mass acceptance. It would take ONE court case. That is what Bush is trying to do, pre-empt the courts before they allow gay marriage. That's why they talked about a Constitutional amendment, so the court couldn't really strike it down. No, I do not personally know a polygamist. But I've seen on one TV!
The issue for many supporters of gay marriage is simply one of equality. As others have pointed out eloquently, marriage is a right in this country, at least for adult heterosexuals. It has important legal ramifications in terms of citizenship, adoption, hospital visitation rights, custody issues, etc. Gay couple are de facto second class citizens when it comes to these issues. My great-aunt and her partner have been together for over 50 years. Yet legally, my aunt's estranged brother (who severed relations with her when she came out in the 1950s) is her next-of-kin. If she is in the hospital and is incapacitated, he is the one who has the right to make decisions for her, with no input whatsoever from the person who has been her partner for most of her lifetime. It seems that some people somehow cannot accept that a gay relationship can be just as deep, committed, sacred and meaningful as a straight relationship... Andrew Sullivan, a politically conservative Catholic columnist who happens to be gay, has been writing extensively about this issue. http://andrewsullivan.com ----------------------------------------------------------- The backlash to gay equality is now in full swing on the right. The Vatican declared in no uncertain terms the "evil" nature of loving gay relationships. Not only are gay relationships inferior to straight ones; they bear no relationship whatsoever to them. They are not even "remotely analogous." Love is not something gay couples feel in the way that straight couples feel. And if a gay couple adopts, say, a foster child, then they are inflicting "violence" upon such a child. Violence. This from an institution that, we now know, condoned, covered up and practised the molestation of hundreds of children. I guess they're speaking from personal experience. In Canada, "Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary warned that Mr. Chrétien [the Canadian Prime Minister] could be doomed to burn in hell if he allows same-sex legislation to become legal." And then I get a revealing email like the following: "A few years ago I attended a lesbian "marriage" ceremony in Memphis. One of the women involved was a childhood friend of my wife, and as a pretty libertarian conservative, I was all in favor of it. To my utter surprise, about halfway through the "ceremony" I was furious and I only grew angrier. It took a while to figure out why I was so upset, but what I finally decided was that if this charade of a real relationship was to be called "marriage" then what does that make my own marriage? Is all marriage to be reduced to this level? My marriage is the most important thing in my life; it honors a promise I made before God to love & cherish my wife; it’s a promise made completely separate from the issue of whether we have sex with each other. (We’ll still be married if either of us should suffer some injury.) How can you compare that to the fly-by-night sexual couplings of gay people who define themselves, to the subordination of all other traits, by their sexual preference? I encourage communities that are so inclined to constitute some sort of legal relationship that allows for property inheritance, rights to handle details at funerals & hospitals, etc., regardless of sex or relationship. I will never accept the gay agenda of cheapening the meaning of marriage so that those who have chosen to live outside the boundaries of normalcy can feel better about their choices by redefining normal." There you have it. He provides no evidence why this lesbian relationship is somehow a "fly-by-night sexual coupling." That's just how he feels about it. A heterosexual quickie Vegas wedding would doubtless leave him feeling far less angry. What you have here, I think, is a simple defense of privilege. This is my piece of social status. If queers are in it, it's no longer special. Why? The usual inchoate emotions. One reason minorities have always always needed courts to defend them against overwhelming majorities is that privilege has defenders. Remember the battle over inter-racial marriage? Back then, whites felt that their institution would be destroyed and cheapened by "mongrel" weddings. Much bigger majorities opposed inter-racial marriage in 1967, when it was finally protected, than now oppose same-sex marriage. But then those evil judicial activists imposed equal marriage rights on an unwilling populace. ------------------------------------------------------------ I really don't understand the argument that gay marriage would somehow weaken or cheapen straight marriage. Unless the thought is that gay people are somehow fundamentally unable to love and be committed in the same way that straight people are? Which seems pretty offensive to me.
Good post, it's absolutely about discrimination and equality. This stuff about incest and polygamy is simply a sky is falling diversion from the real issue.
By your logic something had to be there to make God. Why does a non-traditional family automatically qualify as a "broken home" or not a "good family"? Kids need people who love them and care for them. Why does gender matter? As Buck pointed out that's a pretty radical interpretation of tolerance but who am I to tell you it's wrong or you can't use it that way? Would you be willing to read any of these books in return?
