Posted on 04/15/2005 4:56:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Marriage is about procreation....more importantly it is about the shared responsibility taken upon themselves by male and female when they unite.
The reason for concern about these responsibilities is potential family coming from any union of male and female. That is the only (legitimate) reason why government has an interest in marriage. In fact, the reason the government prosecuted polygamist whasisname Green out in Utah was because that number of wives produced a whole courtyard full of kids....a burden on the welfare system...a consequence.
Therefore, they have an interest in polygamy. They could care less if all of Greens wives happen to love him.
Government is not concerned with who I love. They're concerned with the children born as the consequence of that love.
I agree, thank you.
"Since we're all in it together, and we have to take care of all those polygamist children, then we'll just have to put an end to that polygamy stuff."
Would that argument apply to Catholics? It sounds like a good justification for forcing some contraceptives on those wildly breeding catholics. You know, since we're all in it together.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.
This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity [happiness].
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. - William Blackstone, Of the Nature of Laws in General
Forcing contraceptions on an individual would violate his rights.
What about sterile people? Should they be allowed to marry?
Interesting.
God granted Sarah fertility at a miraculous age. Why would we want to get in the way of other such miracles?
Hopefully, this is going to take us into the meat of your argument on why you think we should move towards gay marriage, based on policy. What is the state's compelling interest in marriage, beyond how it resulted in what was recognized as a positive good for society, a more stable environment to raise future citizens?
Move the definition too far from the way most of traditional religions define it, what would be the interest of any church to recognize state authority in the area of marriage? In practice, many Mormons & Muslims are already doing what I'm talking about. Imagine that kind of practice spreading to the majority in the nation.
I think it is healthy for churches to have their own recognitions of marriage as they do. The Catholics have been doing it since rocks cooled. They don't recognize marriages by divorcees. To get out of that box, they issue disingenuous wholesale annulments. I think it is in the interests of the state to respect and honor profound adult commitments of intimacy, and in fact beyond that, a recognition of the that gays are full citizens of the land, in every sense, and to encourage monogamy. But that is my policy choice, and it will cost the government considerable money in federal benefits and more fraudulent "marriages" if it goes down that road. For one to suggest otherwise, is to not be honest.
There can be no assumption of sterility. The issue is potential for reproductivity.
John & Mary have it.
George and Jake don't.
Women who've had a hysterectomy?
I think our worship of contraception over the past 40 years has ventured into the realm of self-imposed genocide. It shouldn't be too hard to explain this to our children, but I think there are a lot of interested parties manipulating our public education system and entertainment industies trying to keep the young people in the dark.
Women who've had a hysterectomy still have ovaries. You need to suggest a ovectomy (??? is that the right word??), but even then you can still harvest eggs.
The potential is there.
But, as we rack our brains for some kind of exception, we are simply emphasizing the rule: in the vast majority of cases, a male and female are potentially reproductive.
Jack and Jake are never potentially reproductive.
There maybe cloning techniques that make this possible in the future. We need to be ready to deal with those who will argue in favor of invoking the technique. But this also illustrates our common ground: the state has no business playing God, using its power to redefine what it means to be human.
We'd best be very careful where this is all going. We might engineer ourselves out of existence.
The powers of darkness have been actively engaged in deceiving women and encouraging sin in men since the Garden.
They target our precious young ladies and the strength of our nation, our young men. They target them for perversion.
Europe now is reeling due to its failure to reproduce.
I understand that our caucasion and black women are not raising children at a rate even to reproduce themselves....white women because of contraception/abortion and black women because of abortion/contraception.
Our other minority cultures are keeping our population growth at the replacement level. Otherwise, like Europe, we'd also probably be staring down the barrel of an islamic future.
You are correct about it in one direction, but ignored the basis of my question. If the state corrupts the definition of marriage, what will compel the Catholic Church to continue to go along with the program & continue to file it's marriages with the state?
I think it is in the interests of the state to respect and honor profound adult commitments of intimacy, and in fact beyond that, a recognition of the that gays are full citizens of the land, in every sense, and to encourage monogamy.
Why? I thought we were not going to be interested in what people do in their bedrooms anymore & I say that in the broadest terms.
But that is my policy choice, and it will cost the government considerable money in federal benefits and more fraudulent "marriages" if it goes down that road. For one to suggest otherwise, is to not be honest.
It would also force private citizens into "recognition". An example would be someone that rents out a single room in their own home.
I certainly hope the state isn't going to snoop into my medical records to find out if I've had a hysterectomy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.