Civil Unions: Separate and Unequal

[GloriaPatri]

Not really. I know two children being brought up in a home with two mothers. They're turning out just fine - in fact, that family is more functional than many of the heterosexually-headed families I encounter.

I never said that they would not turn out fine - I was just saying that it is better for a child to have a mother and father.

Can I see a link or an article on then study that proves this, please.

Go to the library and check out 'Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?', 'Life Without Father', 'The Two Sexes', and 'Taking Sex Differences Seriously'.

 

[standing_alone]

I never said that they would not turn out fine - I was just saying that it is better for a child to have a mother and father.

Why is it better that it's a mother and a father? I think it's better as long as both parents are caring, stable, and there for their children. I don't think the sex of the parents is really that big of a deal.

Go to the library and check out 'Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?', 'Life Without Father', 'The Two Sexes', and 'Taking Sex Differences Seriously'.

I'll have to remember to look into that.


However, I fail to see how a homosexual couple would destine their children to such things. Also, not all marriags yield offspring.

 

[GloriaPatri]

My religious view is who I am. I can not just abandon my views on certain subjects. That would be hypocritical.

 

[standing_alone]

My religious view is who I am. I can not just abandon my views on certain subjects. That would be hypocritical.

And I'm not saying you have to abandon your views. You don't have to recognize same-sex marriages - only the federal government has to.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Why is it better that it's a mother and a father? I think it's better as long as both parents are caring, stable, and there for their children. I don't think the sex of the parents is really that big of a deal.

I think that it is best for children to have a mother and father. There are certain things you can only get/need from your mother and there are only things you can get/need from your father. I'm not saying that kids who are raised in a same-sex household are going to be terrible kids - I'm just saying that it is better for them to have a loving mother and father.

However, I fail to see how a homosexual couple would destine their children to such things. Also, not all marriags yield offspring.

It wouldn't destine them for such things - it would just increase the chances of such things.

 

[standing_alone]

I think that it is best for children to have a mother and father. There are certain things you can only get/need from your mother and there are only things you can get/need from your father. I'm not saying that kids who are raised in a same-sex household are going to be terrible kids - I'm just saying that it is better for them to have a loving mother and father.



It wouldn't destine them for such things - it would just increase the chances of such things.

And I disagree. I think it is better for children to have two, stable, caring parents that are there for them. I think the sex of those parents is irrelevant. Hell, I can't go to either of my parents to get anything I need (emotionally) from them because I don't trust them and they're heterosexuals. And regardless of that, I've turned out just fine. Certainly a same-sex couple is of no disadvantage of raising children.

 

[Pah]

For the Catholic Church it has. It was determined at the Council of Trent that marriage has always been a sacrament and it is defined in the canon law.

Ex post facto. The 16th century is no time to claim sacrement when the Church has instituted "blessings" for both straight and gay couples in the 14th century and earlier. Declaring "anathma" two centuries later does not take away the fact that services were written and performed to provide "blessing" in the Church.

Spin it however you like but don't expect very many of use to buy it.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Ex post facto. The 16th century is no time to claim sacrement when the Church has instituted "blessings" for both straight and gay couples in the 14th century and earlier. Declaring "anathma" two centuries later does not take away the fact that services were written and performed to provide "blessing" in the Church.

Spin it however you like but don't expect very many of use to buy it.

It was also declared at the Council of Florence and by Pope Innocent IV (which, by the way, was before the 14th century).

In fact, you can trace it back to the Bible. The Aposotle Paul said "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life; that He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church: because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones."

Saint Paul then goes on to say "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh" and concludes by saying "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church."

 

[Pah]

It was also declared at the Council of Florence and by Pope Innocent IV (which, by the way, was before the 14th century).....

Innocent's "sanctity of marriage" applied to the Waldensians and was contained as part of the oath proscribed for them. .

..we do not deny that carnal marriages are to be contracted, according to the words of the Apostle.

this in 1208, the 13th century. It was NOT a church wide promulgation nor eccumenical on it's face.

The Council of Florence, aka, the Council of Basel, took place 1431-1445, the 15th century.

I stand by my statement "The 16th century is no time to claim sacrement when the Church has instituted "blessings" for both straight and gay couples in the 14th century and earlier".

Boswell, in Same-Sex Unions, shows an office for Same-Sex Union in the 10th and 11th centuries - several offices in the later.

 

[Quiddity]

Ex post facto. The 16th century is no time to claim sacrement when the Church has instituted "blessings" for both straight and gay couples in the 14th century and earlier.

It is to be clarified that the Church always had profound conviction that they conferred interior Divine grace in marriage (which is mildly called a blessing by some). Which is exactly what a sacrament is. No different then the word "Pope" coming in latter times does not by any means prove that Popes didn't exist before the word was coined.

I'm going to have to kindly ask you to show me when the Church approved of what I bolded above please.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

 

[jeffrey]

They can be allowed civil unions - not marriage.

But this is trying to pass your religious beliefs on a nation as a whole. Marriage is not an exclusive right of just Catholics, but you seem to think it is. What harm, to you personally, would gay marriage cause you? Do tell.

 

[jeffrey]

So, GP, according to you, it's better for the Fed. Gov. to marry an alcoholic man to a crack head woman, which the Gov. allows,better for the children, then by to people of the same sex that love each other, which at this point it time, the Gov does not allow? What ever happened to equality and tolerance?

 

[Green Gaia]

But this is trying to pass your religious beliefs on a nation as a whole. Marriage is not an exclusive right of just Catholics, but you seem to think it is. What harm, to you personally, would gay marriage cause you? Do tell.

GloriaPatri has already indicated that he supports equal legal rights for same sex couples, and I thank him for it. We have to recognize those on our side who may have a different point of view and take care not to alienate them just because they don't agree with how we see everything. Being in the religion he is, he is having trouble calling it marriage. We may not like that, but it's a start. I've talked to quite a few people who feel the same way. That's why I think the most fair and consistent thing to do is to abolish marriage as a legal term. Make civil unions equal to what civil marriage is now and recognized by the federal government and open to any adult couple, regardless of gender (and don't anyone dare pull out the incest card, that's another thread and you know it). Marriage as a term is therefore regulated to religious institutions who can pick and choose whom they will allow a religious marriage ceremony, just as they always have. The government will recognize same sex couples and grant them all the same rights, benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples now have - in the eyes of the law we will be treated equally and "marriage" is protected for those who wish to keep it exclusive within their religious institutions. Everybody wins.

 

[pdoel]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman and that's that.

Could you give better reasons of why marriage is between a man and a woman only, besides "because I said so?"

 

[mr.guy]

Could you give better reasons of why marriage is between a man and a woman only, besides "because I said so?"

Well, i believe he also said "because i feel so". How can you reject an argument so intuitive, that one's "feelings" make a sufficient presentation,

 

[jeffrey]

Maize, I'm not trying to alienate anybody. When women got the right to vote, did they do away with the word vote? When blacks got their right to freedom, did they call it something else? As pah pointed out, not calling it marriage is making it second class.

 

[Green Gaia]

Maize, I'm not trying to alienate anybody. When women got the right to vote, did they do away with the word vote? When blacks got their right to freedom, did they call it something else? As pah pointed out, not calling it marriage is making it second class.

I know neither you nor anyone else is trying to alienate anyone. :hug: I just fear that if we all gang up on someone who is on our side for equal rights just because we squabble over definitions that this may push some people who are on the fence to the opposite side.

While there are many similarities in women and African-Americans getting the right to vote and gay rights to those of us who see all of these as cases of civil rights, there are differences as well. No one disputed what the word 'vote' meant but we clearly have different definitions of what a marriage is. To be fair and consistent under the law we should remove the word marriage as a legal term and use civil union for everyone. That way there is no distinction as far as the law and the government is concerned therefore not creating different classes. Religious institutions will still be allowed (as they always have) to hold to whatever definition of marriage fits their needs and beliefs. I see this as a win-win situation for everyone, although I'm not naive enough to think there won't be opposition. I'm quite sure there will be. But if we separate the legal and religious terms very clearly and show the religious part has been taken out of the equation then those still in opposition will be seen as what they are: against equal legal rights for all citizens.

 

[evearael]

As pah pointed out, not calling it marriage is making it second class.

How is it second class when everybody uses civil unions (for the government's purposes)? Homosexual couples could get married, too, in the religious sense in more open faiths like UU. If some churches don't want to marry a homosexual couple, they are within their rights, just like they can turn away any other couple for any other reason.

 

[Green Gaia]

Because children need a mother and a father. For example, it is a proven fact that fathers reduce juvenile delinquincy in boys and sexual activity in girls. It is also a proven fact that mothers provide emotional support and are unmathced in reading the emotional and physical signs of an infant.

I realize this is line of discussion is off topic, but I wonder if these studies you cite that say the benefits of a mother and father are better compared 2 parent homes where the parents were heterosexual to 2 parent homes where the parents were the same sex, OR if (as I'm inclined to think) that the 2 heterosexual parents were compared to single parent homes.

All of the objective studies that I've read on same sex parents and their children agree that children of gay and lesbian parents turn out no worse (or better) than children of heterosexual parents. Some kids turn out great, some kids don't, just as in heterosexual households.

But like I said, this is a little off topic for this thread. I'd be happy to discuss it with you further elsewhere if you like.

 

[Ðanisty]

To be fair and consistent under the law we should remove the word marriage as a legal term and use civil union for everyone. That way there is no distinction as far as the law and the government is concerned therefore not creating different classes. Religious institutions will still be allowed (as they always have) to hold to whatever definition of marriage fits their needs and beliefs. I see this as a win-win situation for everyone, although I'm not naive enough to think there won't be opposition.

I don't think this is going to work. It's a nice idea on the surface, but it will alienate other people that don't even have an issue with gay marriage or gay rights. It will alienate the heterosexual couples who get married at the courthouse and choose not to have a religious ceremony. These people would no longer be considered married, they won't have a marriage license...they will have civil unions instead. Now instead of making homosexuals second-class citizens, you'd be making non-religious people (or people who follow unrecognized religions) second-class citizens. What of all the heterosexual couples who have marriage licenses now? If the law changes, what will happen to our marriage licenses? Will it be fair to future heterosexual couples who get married in the courts to not get marriage licenses when some of us still have them? Imagine you present your civil union lisence to someone instead of your marriage license...what will they think? It will give them the opportunity to discriminate against you due to whatever their crazy imagination comes up with (homosexual, atheist, whatever they assume).