Posted on 04/19/2009 5:46:29 PM PDT by zaphod3000
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Because the larger society has a role to play as well. While you ‘think’ children are not possible, they could happen. Further, by accepting marriage as it is and has been for thousands of years, children remain a key element to the larger societal question and children are our future. The demographic collapse that has already begun in secularized societies that have aborted, contracepted and sodomized themselves free of the ‘burden of children’ is going to be enormously destructive to our way of life and opens the doors for the tribes of Islam. This isn’t about you, your girlfriend, your boyfriend if you want one or your dog/goat/turtle/etc - it is a matter of national survival.
Here's the difference, whether you're religious or not: a union between a man and a woman is designed for the bearing and raising of children, whether or not that actually happens in every case. Moreover, almost every union has the potential for producing children. Plenty of women who thought they were post-menopausal have suddenly found themselves a happy mother made - and the early 50s, even the mid-50's, ain't out of the woods yet, believe me! (I'm 54). And I personally know two couples who tried everything to get pregnant (including in vitro), were told they were unable to conceive, adopted a child, and then suddenly turned up pregnant.
Even if you don't believe in the religious aspect, marriage between a man and a woman is socially, potentially, and ontologically different from a necessarily barren homosexual relationship.
P.S. . . . annulments are not that difficult (or expensive) to obtain, depending on circumstances.
See post 23. C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” has a good set of common sense answers to this question as well.
“I think we could actually gain some support from our detractors if we could make this separation clear.””
And what about the secular science of BIOLOGY??? Evolution can only occur with HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
Monogamy is a fetish... Homosexuality is a fetish...
So, the bishop is a religious faggot?
Monogamy is a fetish. Homosexuality is a fetish.
Separation of church and state???
How about biology as a standard?
“What’s he that was not born of woman?” (Macbeth, act V, scene VII)
The 'reason' that man and woman are 'ying and yang' is that they are designed to be a unit and to reproduce their kind. Without that result of the unit/union, the whole human race just grinds to a halt. So the nature of man and woman tends to drive them into each other's arms - for the continuation of the species. Whether you see that as the intention of the Almighty or just the Biological Imperative, is up to you. I like the idea of divine intention because it makes lots more room for the love, partnership and compatibility aspects of marriage.
Which of course is what narses touched on. Procreation may not be the only thing, but it is a very important thing, perhaps the single most important thing.
And 'not alone' in the case of Adam isn't necessarily limited to Eve herself - children would also ensure that he was not alone, or Eve for that matter if he predeceased her.
I believe that the government has an obligation to support marriage (as traditionally defined) because there is a public interest in promoting committed mother/father relationships for the best environment in which to raise children. There is no comparable public interest in other types of relationships. Therefore, I would disagree with Robinson’s premise that religions are “forcing” the state not to recognize same sex “marriages” because I think privileging civil traditional marriage can be justified on secular grounds. As for allowing religious groups to perform civil marriages, I believe that is simply a convenience and a matter of respect for the free exercise of religion rather than hostility to religion.
On a natural basis, it is an issue of national defense / national survival. There are clear and compelling religious and supernatural reasons, but for those to whom religion is an anethma in the public discourse, the demographic collapse ongoing in Russia and Japan and the EU (excepting muslims) ought to be a sufficient cause for alarm.
Yes, you are right that counteracting demographic depopulation would be another public policy reason to encourage civil traditional marriage beside providing the most secure environment for children.
Funny coming from him. His church is busy trying to fulfill the Great Commission inasmuch as it can spread its own brand of theology. And yet he is arguing that the very same Great Commission is oppressive to his way of life.
Marriage exists, historically, to guarantee the paternity of children. Same sex marriages are not productive. There is no concern as to parentage because everyone knows that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child. If he wants his tryst, then he can have it without involving the church.
He is right. The church should not be in the business of same sex marriage.
Did you see where I described us as both being in our early 50's? My lady is past menopause. And if that kid can get through my twenty-five year old vasectomy, with all that he's had to get through, we'd name him Houdini. And you'd be celebrating Christmas on a whole 'nother day!
This isn’t about you, your girlfriend, your boyfriend if you want one or your dog/goat/turtle/etc - it is a matter of national survival.
And letting homosexuals marry each other is going to stop straight young people from finding each other, marrying, and having children to perpetuate our society? Or, perhaps you believe that with enough official discouragement of homosexuality, those people will suddenly go straight?
We've tried that, and the most tragic cases I can think of as a result of that misguided attempt to legislate sexual orientation are the straight spouses who are left when their partner decides they really can't go on pretending to be something they're not. McGreevey's wife is just one of the people I have in mind.
We could use the same description to define something way more simple: a heterosexual sexual act. That was nature's design, anyway, at least if we look at the animal world, where no special ceremony is necessary. Human societies took that act and confined it to one man, one woman, at least for the common people. The king always got to have multiple wives and concubines. Even Biblical figures did this. But I'm sure you're aware of that.
Moreover, almost every union has the potential for producing children.
You can forget my potential marriage with my lady. See my comments above as to why it "ain't gonna happen". Given that, would you deny us the benefits that marriage would supply to us, even though we have zero possibility of producing children to protect with the societal institution of marriage?
Even if you don't believe in the religious aspect, marriage between a man and a woman is socially, potentially, and ontologically different from a necessarily barren homosexual relationship.
You mentioned adoption earlier in your response, homosexual couples can adopt children in the vast majority of states. They certainly earned their stripes in this endeavor when they took on AIDS babies that nobody else wanted. And with a pair of lesbians, all they need is a donor, and both of them can have children if that is what is desired. There's not a single thing that our society can do to stop them, if there were, we'd use that to prevent welfare mothers.
I know that socially speaking, it has been one man, one woman in most Western societies for a very long period of time. I also know that a mere two hundred or so years ago, the men that I deeply admire as the Founding Fathers regarded full political freedom as something that could only be extended to white, property-owning males over the age of twenty-one. Clearly, we've seen a social evolution from beyond that point.
Perhaps the institution of civil marriage, which is the only religious institution co-opted by our legal system, would evolve as well. That's what happens when things that should have stayed within religion become part of the law.
There is an interest in promoting the raising of children, but leaving aside the question of children that might be raised in a same-sex parented household, is it right to extend those benefits to couples long after the job is done?
Some states have shown us a possible way out of this, it's called "covenant marriage". A special set of circumstances is imposed on a couple who agrees to that level of marriage, especially in regard to their responsibilities to the children of that relationship. I can see giving them added societal benefits, such as particular tax breaks (at the state level, of course, initially) or possibly even extended help in keeping or starting their homes.
If that were limited to couples who had the stated intention of starting families, and the breaks would be taken away after a period of either infertility or the age of majority of the last child (I could see continuing them for a disabled child) then maybe we'd have a societal institution that would deliver what you're talking about. It looks like civil marriage is going to be extended to same-sex couples eventually, anyway, so you might be able to limit covenant marriage to heterosexuals. Maybe.
But that's not the point. The point is that despite individual accidents of health, fertility, or whatever, a marriage between a man and a woman, as a general rule, results in babies as a natural consequence. You can always find individual exceptions, but a homosexual relationship can never be fruitful. Ever.
Using the lower animals as a model for human behavior is reductionist and ridiculous. We are not animals, more is expected of us. Animals kill one another freely and devour their children, the males will kill the female's preexisting offspring, etc.
The whole in vitro thing is a time bomb waiting to go off. People freak out because the Catholic Church opposes it, but it can be disastrous, especially with homosexual couples. I work in the justice system, and you would be surprised how many male homosexual couples molest adopted male children . . . and how many lesbian couples physically abuse and even murder male children. I personally know a lesbian couple with an AI male child, and that is the most messed up kid I know. The fact that some well-intentioned couples have adopted AIDs babies is a star in their crown, but they are not all that common. Far too many of the babies are political trophies. And to use the rare exception of a well-intentioned adoption (which is a cure for a tragic problem, not the norm) as a justification to change the entire definition of marriage, is again reductionist.
And to compare the franchise with marriage is like comparing homosexuality with race. Apples and oranges. The franchise as a concept isn't anywhere near as old as marriage -- go back a thousand years and hardly anybody anywhere got a "vote" except some of the Scandinavian peoples, and there it was only the warriors who got to vote.
Marriage has been both a religious and a social construct for as long as there has been society, because otherwise kids don't know who their daddies are and daddies don't know who their babies are. The social purpose of marriage is to legitimize offspring and thus reassure the father that his genetic potential is actually being carried on.
Somebody at work said just yesterday about these sperm banks where donors are used over and over again, "We're going to have people marrying their sisters."
And I'll admit, that is a concern for some folks. But I'm going to guess that the time between the third child and the fourth child was way shorter than the twenty-five years that my vasectomy has had to "take". After awhile, the body just manufactures antibodies to destroy sperm, this is one of the things that thwarts reversals.
The point is that despite individual accidents of health, fertility, or whatever, a marriage between a man and a woman, as a general rule, results in babies as a natural consequence.
They certainly do. But we do not make having those babies as a condition of getting the benefits society confers on the married couple. Heterosexual people can find someone of the other gender and marry them even if they have an absolutely firm intention to never procreate. Society gains the benefit of two people willing to care for each other in a relationship of mutual fidelity, that is itself a stabilizing influence.
Using the lower animals as a model for human behavior is reductionist and ridiculous.
I was just making the point that it was merely a heterosexual sex act that is responsible for creation of the vast majority of new animal life. In this respect, we humans share a characteristic with other animal life.
I work in the justice system, and you would be surprised...
May I suggest that your experience is not typical? Homosexual couples who have successful adoption experiences would not have their names coming across your desk. It's like the women who work with child support collection. They see only the men who are skunks, and they tend to generalize about all men being that way. When I did title examinations, and had to call up the Department of Social and Health Services to find out the amount of a child support lien, I found it more advantageous to have a female co-worker call for the information, I was often treated as the "enemy".
The fact that some well-intentioned couples have adopted AIDs babies is a star in their crown, but they are not all that common.
That's because we've been successful at preventing the transmission of AIDS/HIV to babies, in ways that we weren't back in the 1980's. Antiviral drugs really have reduced the number of children born with this condition.
Marriage has been both a religious and a social construct for as long as there has been society, because otherwise kids don't know who their daddies are and daddies don't know who their babies are.
And the situation you describe has been a norm, too. Affairs have been going on for as long as there have been men and women. Many kids throughout history have not known who their daddies are. Maybe some of them had fathers who were those Scandiavian warriors you were talking about!
The social purpose of marriage is to legitimize offspring and thus reassure the father that his genetic potential is actually being carried on.
That was the social purpose of fidelity of women, to assure a man that the children he was providing for were his. And we did wrap it up in the institution of marriage. But since we have been able to effectively separate sex from reproduction, we now have marriages that need not be "fruitful" to use your term. Same sex relationships have that characteristic in common with those non-childbearing heterosexual marriages.
Somebody at work said just yesterday about these sperm banks where donors are used over and over again, "We're going to have people marrying their sisters."
Perhaps, but that would concern laws that are used to deal with sperm banks, they have nothing to do with the evolving definition of civil marriage.
Illegitimate children conceived inside a marriage have certainly occurred since the dawn of marriage. "Rocking the cradle and none of my own" is a well known folk song. But again, you can't make a general rule based on the exception created by the very people who violate the rule. That lets the lawbreakers make the rules -- which is essentially what's going on now. Allow people who have violated the social construct of marriage to say, "O.K., we've broken the rules so you now ought to get rid of the rules altogether" and you're letting the lunatics run the asylum. I'm sure burglars, murderers and embezzlers would LOVE such a rule -- and certainly there's a lot of burglary, murder and embezzlement going on.
My experience isn't limited to the court system by any means. My mom has been a professional dancer since 1948, so I have had ample opportunity to view the Atlanta homosexual community at close range. Even leaving aside those who fall afoul of the criminal law, it's not a healthy environment for children. In fact, it's not a healthy environment for the participants, either, but that's an argument for another day.
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.