How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

crosswalk ^ | April 13, 2004 | Mary Rettig and Jenni Parker

[RichardEdward]

In Scandinavia, illegitimate birth rates exceed 50 percent. The majority of Swedish and Norwegian children are born out of wedlock, and 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Meanwhile, marriage rates subtly decline while, in some countries, divorce rates have skyrocketed to nearly 80 percent

[William Wallace]

Thank you askel.

LOL I'm still one post behind everyone else. Gotta learn to type/proofread faster.

On my way to buy Finding Nemo right now.

FReegards,
WW

[FormerLib]

Respectfully, I believe you did miss askel's point.

Yes, that does appear to be the case.

Quite frankly, if you spend any amount of time discussng morality and its importance in online forums, you will encounter folks who insist that "homosexual marriage" is the moral equivalent to married heterosexuals without children (regardless of the reason).

I think the point that she made during our discussion that those who accept artificial contraception or fertilization cannot oppose "homosexual marriage" to be quite wrong. If anything, the attention that is currently being focused on this alleged "civil right" can serve as a beacon to call more people to move away from modern interpretations of morality and move towards the morals standards that were delivered to us.

Quite simply, not only are these the laws meant for us by "Nature and Nature's God" (as the Founding Fathers often called it), but they result in healthier, better adjusted, and more noble humans.

[FormerLib]

On my way to buy Finding Nemo right now.

LOL!

Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!

My wife was actually concerned how'd I'd react to one of the parts being voiced by Ellen Degeneres. I told her that unless her character launched into a lecture about lifestyle "choice", she really needs to lighten up!

[Askel5]

=== Sorry for butting in.

Perish the thought! I respectfully request you ALWAYS butt in. Seriously. Between strafing as a rule and being "askelian" somewhat, I'm not often understood and could use the help ... particularly when it comes packing the substance and form of your last.



FormerLib -- I do remain hopeful as I think you may be. It's just that I'm pretty lazy too and am well aware of how effective is the peer pressure by which those who have their own sins are unable or unwilling to change themselves before ever thinking to change others.

That's the really sad part about this for me. I've actually had folks condemn homosexuals (not their place to do, btw, only homosexuality is to be condemned) even as they assert that their practice of birth control -- by which they purposefully exclude absolutely the Creator from the process -- is somehow acceptable to God.

I don't know. I suspect it will take more suffering than this to actually bring folks back to Reality.

[spunkets]

" There's no such thing as a “right” to birth control, only a sundry variety of techniques/devices of varying effectiveness for preventing pregnancy.

Yes there is, it stems from the right of soveriegnty of will that each individual has. Limits upon that soveriegnty are justified only insofar as they infringe upon the rights of others. The right refers to the choice of whether, or not to have a child. Birth control that is not murder of an existing child infringes on no one's rights.

"...there is no judicially recognized “right” to birth control."

The courts do not determine rights, people do, by virtue of their capacity to do so.

" The Supreme Court struck down laws banning the sale of contraceptives to married persons on the basis of a suddenly discovered “right of privacy” somewhere within the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights, not on a “right” to use birth control per se. That happened in 1965, so it's a curious species of “absolute right” that wasn't even asserted for 189 of our nation's 228 years of existence.

The court, the people and the US Constitution refused to recognize all sorts of rights at various times. That does not mean they don't exist. At various times whole groups of people were denied their rights, by the power and ill will of the majority.

If there was an absolute “right” to birth control, then you should be able to exercise it without restriction on an otherwise deserted island save you and a member of the opposite sex. After all, there are no laws or other people around to infringe upon the exercise of your absolute right. I think you'll find your claimed “right” to be guaranteed only if you refrain from having sex or one of you is unable to reproduce. That doesn't sound like an absolute right to me."

Only, because you failed to note that men are capable of creating and providing things. BTW, the choice of whether, or not to have sex is an absolute right. Denying contraceptive methods to folks, that do not include the murder of abortion is itself a crime. It is the same theft of soveriegnty of will slavers and socialists demand. Their are valid reasons to chose not to have children, that amount to the ability to satisfy responsibilities.

[Askel5]

It's SUCH a great flick. I haven't gotten my collector's copy DVD YET but I've only seen it about six or seven times (courtesy of the munchkins' video library =).

Having done a lot of children's theatre, I'm always aware of how one needs to shoot over the heads of the kids somewhat and entertain those who bought the tickets. Also refreshing for me was the way this one particularly Disney effort never threw a gutter-ball as seems to be the practice any more. "touching the butt" was about it.

Do you not love the way Crush waxes on being a Dad? That makes me cry too. (Askel's actually a bit of softy where particularly poignant animated kids' features are concerned.)

[Askel5]

=== The courts do not determine rights, people do, by virtue of their capacity to do so.


So ... we vote on virtue and pick and choose among everyone's alternative realities for a one-size fits most?

[spunkets]

Sorry, the 2nd to last paragraph should be italicized.

[spunkets]

"So ... we vote on virtue and pick and choose among everyone's alternative realities for a one-size fits most?"

There is only one truth. Whether it is recognized by those choosing what to hold and present as truth, does not effect the truth. Freedom and the protection of individual rights depends on recognizing and allowing beliefs and actions, that don't infringe on rights, even though they may not be true.

[No Truce With Kings]

"The problem with your argument is that two people of the opposite gender can already enter into a "sham" marriage, done just for the benefits. Allowing same-sex marriage would open up the door for same-sex couples to engage in the same type of sham marriage, but it's not like such things can't and don't happen already between people of the opposite gender."

And your point is?

You are right that there are a certain percentage of sham marriages currently. But, assume that they are done at the same percentage of the straight population as I project will participate in sham same-sex marriages. That leave a very small percentage of traditional marriages as shams -- less than two percent. Society can carry that type of a burden. However, 5/6ths of the same-sex marriages are likely to be sham marriages because of the small percentage of population that are gay and the smaller fraction of gays that wish to "marry." That means the overwhelming percentage of gay marriages will be shams.

Further, the most likely type of sham marriages are likely to be between siblings -- two brothers or two sisters "marrying" for the tax and benefit advantages. That is because you need to trust someone with which you get into that type of legal relationship. If you permit "gay" marriage it is hard to argue that you should prohibit "gay" incestuous marriages -- after all there is no chance that such a marriage would have issue, the reason for the incest taboo. And it is hard to argue that incest -- especially between siblings of roughly the same age -- is any more perverse than homosexual relations. So that barrier is going to come down pretty soon after "gay" marriages are legalized.

Because such a large percentage of same sex marriages will be shams, this will "normalize" sham marriage. In turn the percentage of straights contracting sham marriages will increase, because -- after all -- it is just a way to save some money on taxes . . . no big deal.

Of course, the effect of that is to desanctify marriage, and reduce its reputation, except among the religious. Brittany Spears type marriages will be closer to the norm than to being considered as abberations.

Which will make it easier for the government to eliminate the benefits of marriage. After all, if it is viewed as a joke or a tax scam, why bother?

[William Wallace]

Thanks. My wife was actually concerned how'd I'd react to one of the parts being voiced by Ellen Degeneres. I told her that unless her character launched into a lecture about lifestyle "choice", she really needs to lighten up!

LOL thanks for the heads-up. I had a similar experience re: the Acts of the Apostles on DVD with James Brolin playing Peter. It took a bit of work to suspend disbelief.

[cpforlife.org]

Sodomy is satanic

June 23, 2003

The truth written in this editorial will be viewed as intolerant, hateful and a great disrupter of peace, by the worldly person. The Roe v. Wade of satanic sodomy of America will be dated June 26, 2003, “when Satan donned judicial robes and presided again over the most atrocious travesty of justice that ever took place and declared that now we not only have the right to murder the most innocent babies in the womb, but sodomize our youth and our country”. The worldly, view peace as the absence of conflict. Instead of seeking after truth and justice they try to eliminate war by eliminating everything worth fighting for. This counterfeit kind of peace is achieved by sacrificing any need or struggle for moral virtue; a perverse passivity of self-indulgence. Our Lord Jesus’ peace is the fruit of constant battle, the battle between our will and Gods will. The worldly flee from that fight and try to satisfy all their desires. They live life to the fullest in a worldly sense, yet inevitably this always leads to frustration and futility.


Sodomy and abortion are satanic sins that go beyond human depravity. They not only go against God’s law, they go against nature. Many will argue that there is a genetic and biochemical component to these aberrations. Yet there is never a genetic or biochemical component to sin. Sin is an act of the will! Because of original sin we all struggle with vice and sin; each of us has our cross to bear. Yet Our Lord Jesus has made it perfectly clear, “My Grace is sufficient for you”. “Sin is knocking at the door, yet you can be its master”. “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”.


What should our response be to those who are tormented by the temptation of sodomy or even enslaved in its perverse bondage? We must pray, fast and intercede to God for their deliverance; but never allow them to carry out this perverse act or fall into the abyss. Allowing sodomy or abortion is not an act of love or an aid to fallen humanity; it is abandonment. Let us as a nation, and individually, struggle and fight for virtue rather than capitulate to sin and vice for the sake of a false peace. The Prince of Peace came with his presence to establish peace and virtue in our soul.


Richard Mahoney

NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
http://www.cpforlife.org/id108.htm

[Grig]

"You can go to the Court house and be married by an atheist. How would that marriage be considered a sacred institution?"

The institution is not the building or officiator. You can go to a university and be taught by a moron and buy yourself a degree, but it's still an educational institution.

[William Wallace]

OK I will stick my two cents in from time to time. Forewarned. ;-)

I've actually had folks condemn homosexuals (not their place to do, btw, only homosexuality is to be condemned) even as they assert that their practice of birth control -- by which they purposefully exclude absolutely the Creator from the process -- is somehow acceptable to God.

Yes, they can be infuriating. My problem is, I can't seem to peg the holier-than-thou apostates without myself turning into a holier-than-the-holier-than-thou-apostates in the process. Love the sinner, hate the sin is a lot harder than it sounds. Most of us end up loving both or hating both. I'm guilty of both errors, but working on it. I guess that's the first step.

[Grig]

"A church is a phyisical structure."

A church BUILDING is a physical structure. A church is a group of people who share a common religous belief.

"Marriage is an abstract concept,"

Something tells me you aren't married. If by chance you are, try telling that to your spouse.

"and thus would need no "recognition" from the government,"

Need? No, marriage existed before any formal government, but it is definitely in the best interest of the state to promote and protect marriage as a matter of social policy.

Legal, tax, and other benifits are merely ways of implementing that social policy and not a constitutional right of married people. Government is well within it's power to do that, or if they want, to withdraw them altogether. It would be extremely foolish, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

[frgoff]

This straw man is getting really old. Before the United States, the church WAS the government.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Some of your reasoning is correct, but there is a whopper of a mistake in your post. You assumed that only gay people would enter into sham same-sex marriages!

[NutCrackerBoy]

[The right to birth control] stems from the right of soveriegnty of will that each individual has. Limits upon that soveriegnty are justified only insofar as they infringe upon the rights of others.

Not so fast. It is not always easy to establish infringement, but let's just start with your sovereignty of will. To what moral philosophy are you appealing? We need to look at it. While I concur in a general way - it is usually virtuous to stay out of another individual's business - this absolute, like most absolutes, does not work.

[spunkets]

"To what moral philosophy are you appealing?"

Both God's and man's. They are the same.

"We need to look at it. While I concur in a general way - it is usually virtuous to stay out of another individual's business - this absolute, like most absolutes, does not work."

It is absolute and it always works, provided that interference is restricted to sanctioning rights violations.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Please.

Try to make sense here.

One has nothing to do with the other. If your argument was correct, then that same magistrate that can perform the marriage sacrament, can perform a baptism.

Can he?

Of course not.