Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MathDoc

When a law contains exceptions based on gender, such as your formulation, “Men are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Women are allowed to marry the opposite sex,” it is no different from older laws that made exceptions based on race, such as “Black people are allowed to marry the same race. White people are allowed to marry the same race.” Many Christian faiths (where our “primary definition” of marriage comes from) still insist that marriage should be retained between two people of the same church: “Catholics are allowed to marry Catholics.” The last time I checked, our government was supposed to promote religious freedom, which also applies to gay marriage.


40 posted on 10/10/2008 1:23:42 PM PDT by sandy23185
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: sandy23185
I am interested in opening a debate with you about your position on this. If you're game, would you kindly reply to the following questions:

What, in your opinion, is the reason governments sanction marriages?

Since marriage is fundamentally a religion-based practice, why would the government get involved in something that is, on the surface, none of their business?

42 posted on 10/10/2008 1:34:59 PM PDT by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: sandy23185; MathDoc
Many Christian faiths (where our “primary definition” of marriage comes from) still insist that marriage should be retained between two people of the same church:

1. Name me a U.S. state where that is a requirement, or has been any time in the last 200 years.

2. Name me any major religion that allows homosexual marriage in its core, orthodox teachings.

44 posted on 10/10/2008 1:50:05 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (*******It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.******)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: sandy23185
When a law contains exceptions based on gender, such as your formulation, “Men are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Women are allowed to marry the opposite sex,” it is no different from older laws that made exceptions based on race, such as “Black people are allowed to marry the same race. White people are allowed to marry the same race.”

Only to the most addle-brained moron.

Two men sodomizing each other are not the moral equivalent of man and wife. Neve have been. Never will be. Our lunatic courts be damned.
46 posted on 10/10/2008 1:59:15 PM PDT by Antoninus (Ignore the polls. They're meant to shape public opinion, not measure it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: sandy23185; MathDoc
Many Christian faiths (where our “primary definition” of marriage comes from) still insist that marriage should be retained between two people of the same church: “Catholics are allowed to marry Catholics.” The last time I checked, our government was supposed to promote religious freedom, which also applies to gay marriage.

BTW, you are confounding two things here. It is and has been the rule of the Catholic Church that Catholics are to marry Catholics. That's true. However, that is part of the law of the Church, not the Natural Law. You can tell that because the Church can and does grant dispensations for Catholics to marry non-Catholics. Also, the Church recognizes the marriages of any two Christians to be sacramentally valid, and marriages between two pagans to be valid as well (though not sacramental).

But you absolutely cannot get a dispensation from the Catholic Church to marry someone of the same sex. Because that violates not just Church law which only pertains to Catholics, but also the Natural Law which pertains to everyone.

And on the interracial argument, the Catholic Church and I dare say most Protestant denominations never ever recognized the legitimacy of any American law that prohibited interracial marriage. Period. That was done by the state. Bans on interracial marriage never had any basis whatsoever in Natural Law and were therefore completely illegitimate from the date of their promulgation.

51 posted on 10/10/2008 2:07:28 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson