Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?

[civilcynic]

I have no problem with homosexual marriages. Using the Bible as the reason to oppose homosexuality is somewhat weak in my view for two reasons. 1: It is a matter of interpretation of the Bible verses which purportedly oppose homosexuality. 2: The Bible recommends alot of things that we do not follow (ie: stoning of children who are disrespectful, etc. The homosexuality issue is a selective use and interpetation of Bible verses.

Lastly, I disagree with the statement that this country was founded upon Christian principles. The majority of the founders of the Constitution were not Christians (Christianity being defined as belief in Christ as the Son of God). Most were Diests (please excuse my spelling)...They believed in God but not necessarily Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and some were agnostics and atheists as well.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

christian principles? shall i remind you that christianity is not an original religion. they have copied (or have been heavily influenced) by previous religions. second, this country was made to be secular.

im quite sorry that your marriages havent worked out, but homos dont get married just for sex or health benefits. they love each other, not thier bodies. sure, many of them may be like YOU, experimenting with love. BUT THATS LIFE! live it to the fullest

"hey you! i wanna have sex with you, marry me!" no no no. people can have sex withought marriying. Gays have been in union with or without benefits from the government.

its love. pure unabridged love between two souls. i think thats what God sees. after all, God is a form of love, i dont think he has a problem with it.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Well for my vote, I absolutely think that homosexual couples should be given every right that hetero couples share. They might never be accepted by all churches and religions, but that's their business, and also why we have separation of church and state, loves!

 

[Scott1]

The Catholic Church believes and teaches that marriage is a faithful, exclusive, and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love. Marriage exists so that the spouses might grow in mutual love and, by the generosity of their love, bring children into the world and serve life fully.

Moreover, we believe the natural institution of marriage has been blessed and elevated by Christ Jesus to the dignity of a sacrament. In this way, the love of husband and wife becomes a living image of the way in which the Lord personally loves his people and is united with them.

God is the author of marriage. It is both a relationship of persons and an institution in society. However, it is not just any relationship or simply another institution. We believe that, in the divine plan, marriage has its proper meaning and achieves its purposes.

Therefore, it is our duty as pastors and teachers – a responsibility we share with the Christian faithful and with all persons of good will – to promote, preserve, and protect marriage as it is willed by God, as generations have understood and lived it, and as it has served the common good of society.

To promote, preserve, and protect marriage today requires, among other things, that we advocate for legislative and public policy initiatives that define and support marriage as a unique, essential relationship and institution. At a time when family life is under significant stress, the principled defense of marriage is an urgent necessity to ensure the flourishing of persons, the wellbeing of children, and the common good of society.

Our defense of marriage must focus primarily on the importance of marriage, not on homosexuality or other matters. The Church’s teaching about the dignity of homosexual persons is clear. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Our respect for them means we condemn all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse. Equally clear is the Church’s teaching about the meaning of sexual relations and their place only within married life.

What are called “homosexual unions,” because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently non-procreative, cannot be given the status of marriage.

Recently, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement emphatically opposing the legalization of homosexual unions. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, welcomed this statement and further articulated our own conviction that such “equivalence not only weakens the unique meaning of marriage; it also weakens the role of law itself by forcing the law to violate the truth of marriage and family life as the natural foundation of society and culture.”

We call on Catholics and other persons of good will to join with us in advancing this positive view of the importance of marriage for children and for society, and to defend these principles and the institution of marriage. This is especially important when popular culture, media and entertainment often undermine or ignore the essential role of marriage and promote equivalence between marriage and homosexual relationships.

We will do this in our teaching and preaching, but also in our public policy advocacy at the state and national levels and in the important dialogue about how best to protect marriage and the common good in the U.S. Constitution and in our society as a whole. We offer general support for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as we continue to work to protect marriage in state legislatures, the courts, the Congress and other appropriate forums. Thus, we strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage --by naming them marriage, civil unions or by other means.

 

[dolly]

First of all, this isn't a Christian country. What the Bible says should have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not marriage should be allowed, especially considering that marriage is no longer solely religious.

Protect the sanctity of marriage? I don't know about you, but I believe het movie stars generally "hurt" the sanctity of marriage far more that a loving hom couple, especially considering that many of the rich and famous are married for less than 2 years before getting a divorce. Sometimes only a few months.

And to protect the family? Hom couples can have families! Are you saying that children raised by homosexuals/bisexuals are inferior and therefore less deserving of government aid/rights/protection/etc than children raised by hets?

The well being of children? The average child raised by a hom couple turns out better than the average child raised by a het couple.



Until you can prove that allowing hom marriages will destroy society, cause significant physical harm to others, etc, there is no reason to make it illegal.

In a couple of decades, people will look back on this debate the same way we know look on back on the interracial marriage debate.



EDIT: Forgot to add:

All you members of religions which are against homosexuality - you don't have to recognize the union in your church. You don't have to marry them in your church. This debate is about the legality of it. This is about allowing it in a completely secular environment. If you can come up with secular reasons which are valid, then fine. Otherwise, Bible/Torah/Quran/etc verses shouldn't be brought up.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Well said dolly, I agree.

Catholicism will never be forced to recognize gay marriages, but that's why we have separation of church and state. Gay marriages will be legalized eventually, on account of because there is nothing which can condemn them within the Constitution...it's only a matter of time. Perhaps gays will make their own gay form of Catholicism (with a gay pope and everything...that would be cool!) if they aren't accpeted by real catholicism. One thing's for sure though, gays will be accepted by some protestant religions...For Catholics to reject them is just another step backwards for that religion. Our society is growing and if the church wants to survive, it needs to grow too.

 

[keevelish]

Actually, gerani, the book of Leviticus is in the old testament. The new testament strictly labels homosexuality as a sin- all traditional practices in the old testament are unecessary with the fulfilment of the law by Jesus Christ. "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their *lust* one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Romans1:26-27 notice the word *lust*

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor *effeminate*, nor abusers (sodomites) of themselves with mankind." 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Now the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were abominations to the Lord--isn't it interesting how a sodomite is defined as "one who is guilty of sodomy", and sodomy is defined as the word from Anglo-French sodomie sexual intercourse between men, from Old French, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom, from the homosexual practices of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1-11?

 

[dolly]

Keevelish - the Bible is irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[Druidus]

Leonardo Da Vinci was a homosexual. He was also a genius, millenia before his time. And he believed in both God and Jesus. We need to crawl out from under the protective shells of a book. We must accept our differences and, indeed, cherish them. For without our differences, we would be nothing, as favour is placed upon the diverse. Look around you. Inside each of us is a spark, a spark of ingenuity, creativity, love, joy, and all the virtues. By covering that flame with a book, is to smother it. Follow your book, yes, but do not let it blind you to the wants and needs of others. These people want, nay, need to marry eachother, and we cannot withhold their right. We can not practice intolerance, and claim to follow a God based on love, caring and tolerance. Pull away the cowls of hatred, fear, and intolerance and let your flame breath. Let the flames of inspiration, rise us to our glory. In the end, we are the same, and yet, we are different. If we show love to those who are different, then we do far more good for a loving God, then protecting a "sacrament" ever could.

/|\ Awen

 

[YawgmothsAvatar]

Here is a good quote:

This more vacuous side of the resistance is part of what should alert gay rights activists and many same-sex couples that victory is within grasp--historical precedent indicates that the future is bright when controversy tapers into mere prejudice.

In the past, officials have occasionally been faced with situations in which their positive vision for the future and their strict adherence to justice enabled them to make decisions counter to the collective will of the people. If not for courageous and unpopular decisions, women would never have gained the right to vote, blacks would still ride buses standing next to sitting white folk, and Jackie Robinson would have never played in the major leagues.

From http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/10/4028587274cd8?in_archive=1

For those of you too lazy to read all of that, this is the summary:

America has a history of increasing its civil rights. A woman's right to vote, the civil rights movement, etc have all suceeded in increasing a the rights of a group of people. Therefore, the homosexuals will mostly likely also get more rights and become able to marry.

 

[Druidus]

America has a history of increasing its civil rights. A woman's right to vote, the civil rights movement, etc have all suceeded in increasing a the rights of a group of people. Therefore, the homosexuals will mostly likely also get more rights and become able to marry.

The question is not whether they will, but if they should.

 

[Pah]

The question is not whether they will, but if they should.

Since homosexuals are citizens of America, they should enjoy all the rights of other citizens. Yes, They should!

-pah-

 

[Henry]

I gotta hurry, I'm on lunch. The question I have is, if homosexuality is okay, and unions should be recognized, then why can't homosexual "couples" pro-create? (have children) I believe there is a two part answer to this question. (oh yeah, the Bible has alot to do with this discussion Dolly)1. As quoted in a previous post, Romans 1 says that God gave them up to vile affections (not love) because men and women were engaging in homosexual sex. 2. Again using nature as the model, if animals engaged in homosexuality, they would eventually cease to exist, as no offspring would come out of it. Gotta go, I'll answer some of the other questions later.

 

[Green Gaia]

The question I have is, if homosexuality is okay, and unions should be recognized, then why can't homosexual "couples" pro-create? (have children)

Not all heterosexual couples can or do have children, but we don't deny them legal marriage rights.

1. As quoted in a previous post, Romans 1 says that God gave them up to vile affections (not love) because men and women were engaging in homosexual sex.

That's fine for Christians, but this is not a Christian theocracy, and therefore laws should not be based on Biblical verses, no matter how they are interpreted.

2. Again using nature as the model, if animals engaged in homosexuality, they would eventually cease to exist, as no offspring would come out of it. Gotta go, I'll answer some of the other questions later.

You're assuming that all the animals would/do engage in homosexuality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

2. Again using nature as the model, if animals engaged in homosexuality, they would eventually cease to exist, as no offspring would come out of it.

That is true only if a significant percentage of the species engaged exclusively in homosexual behavior.

A scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing refutation of the notion that human homosexuality is an aberration in nature. Biologist Bagemihl, who formerly taught cognitive science at the University of British Columbia, argues persuasively that our current understanding of biology and evolution is tainted by a heterosexually biased interpretation of animal behavior. He intends as his audience both a scientific and a general readership; he reaches both with his clear and straightforward presentation.
Focusing primarily on mammals and birds, and citing only strictly documented case studies, he firmly establishes in part one of this work that homosexual and transgendered behaviors occur widely in the animal world. Bagemihl's definition of homosexuality includes a diverse range of activities organized under five headings: courtship, affection, sex, pair-bonding, and parenting. He views the challenge before us now as the need to abandon a traditional point of view, whereby "same-sex activity is routinely described as being 'forced' on other animals" or is viewed as a substitute for heterosexual coupling that occurs only when no other (i.e., no heterosexual) mate can be found as the first choice of those concerned. A new understanding of animal relationships should therefore also recognize that not all animal sexual activity is aimed at reproductionnwe must reconsider traditional explanations of the links between reproduction, evolution, and natural selection.

Part two is organized as a thorough reference guide to homosexual behaviors in individual animals and birds, complete with extensive examples and rigorous footnotes. Bagemihl does realize that some among us will never beconvinced that homosexuality occurs freely and frequently in nature. But his meticulously gathered, cogently delivered evidence will quash any arguments to the contrary.

- see Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

 

[Pah]

I gotta hurry, I'm on lunch. The question I have is, if homosexuality is okay, and unions should be recognized, then why can't homosexual "couples" pro-create? (have children) I believe there is a two part answer to this question. (oh yeah, the Bible has alot to do with this discussion Dolly)

First part - procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage. That is sufficient for you to withdraw the question.

Second part - homosexual males procreate at half the rate of heterosexual males - homosexual females procreate at a higher percentage Many homosexuals wanting a homosexual marriage already have children. Either a donor or surrogate or adoption is available to those who do not have children

1. As quoted in a previous post, Romans 1 says that God gave them up to vile affections (not love) because men and women were engaging in homosexual sex.

• Paul had a very slanted view of what was normal - slavery and opression of women was "normal" to Paul. Homosexuality is very much normal in the range of sexuality amongst all animals (which includes humans)
• Paul condems what is not nornmal for an individual - homosexuality is normal for homosexuals. Bisexuals are normal when they indulge in sex with both sexes
• The verses relate to ex-christians that took up pagan religious practise and do not relate to homosexuals in a commited, loving relationship
• one interpretation of the verses is that the error being made was leaving Christianity and homosexual behavior is minor. The same problem occurrs in the conservative thoughts regarding Sodom.
• men with other men is considered to be pederastry
• the passage refers to non-procreative sex or dominant/submissive relations

There are many readings of Paul and no certianty that your interpretation is correct.

2. Again using nature as the model, if animals engaged in homosexuality, they would eventually cease to exist, as no offspring would come out of it. Gotta go, I'll answer some of the other questions later.

The incidence of homosexuality amongs animals varies from a single digit percentile all the way up to 100% in the case of the bonobos (if you consider bisexuality as part of homosexuality) You also, I assume, fail to realize that some species reproduce entirely without sex and some switch between asexual to sexual and back.

If nature is part of God's creation, that is the prime reason Chriastianity should accept homosexuality as God's work.

-pah

 

[Ardhanariswar]

animals engage in homosexual activity because like us, they were born that way. of course that is all arguable and stuff. but only less than 1/3 (even that is debatable) engage in that. the rest procreate heteroally and its impossible for a spiecies to die out.

letting gays marry wont make this race extinct, its not like they were going to magically have kids if they didnt have thier rights awknowledged. lol.

and that purpose of procreation shouldnt be an issue, because the earth is overpopulated by people and we are using up the earth's rescources, food is scarce in overpopluated areas. do we really need to procreate? sigh.

nature would work out itself.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The whole "it's unnatural" argument is a little ridiculous. Even if homosexual behavior didn't occur anywhere else in nature besides humans (of course, it does), watching TV doesn't occur anywhere in nature other than humans...but TV's are still recognized as the legal property of the owner, with all the rights as a 'natural' peice of property like a home.

 

[dolly]

The question I have is, if homosexuality is okay, and unions should be recognized, then why can't homosexual "couples" pro-create? (have children)

As said before, this is not required for marriage and is thus irrelevant. They can have children, just not with each other, (adoption, etc).

(oh yeah, the Bible has alot to do with this discussion Dolly)

As we a theocracy? Is this a Christian country? No. Therefore, the Bible has no place here.

. Again using nature as the model, if animals engaged in homosexuality, they would eventually cease to exist, as no offspring would come out of it.

First of all, not all of the animals in one species will practice homosexuality. Bisexuality, yes, but not homosexuality.

Secondly, homosexuality actually improves the rate of survival of a species (in pack species) by increasing the survival rate of the children born by the hets.

 

[osuwagner]

I just finished reading all of the posts in this entire debate, and I have yet to hear an actual reason why a secular nation should not allow gays to marry.

Although there are most definitely alterior motives, the current official reasoning behind the Supreme Court's position on gay marriage is entirely tax based. Under the current tax laws, all married couples get tax breaks. This is because the government wants people to get married and reproduce because procreation helps ensure the continuation of the prosperity of our country. Because gay couples cannot reproduce, they therefore do not deserve this tax break aimed at helping growing families. And because, under the government's definition, the point behind marriage is to start a family, it makes sense that gay couples should not be allowed to be married.

This all leads to one obvious question, why should heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce, or even simply refuse to reproduce, still receive the same tax benefits. The government has yet to address this problem. And, (if they are smart at least ), this will be the argument which the gay rights movement will use to gain equality.

Now, to me, the logic which the Supreme Court currently uses is one of the best examples of a double standard which you can come accross in our laws. If the point of marriage create kids, then it seems that the only responsible conclusion you can arrive at is that all couples who cannot, or perhaps, do not wish to reproduce or adopt, should not be allowed to marry. If, however, you believe that marriage is not simply a "license to have kids," but rather is a symbolic seal of love between two human beings, then the only logical answer to allow anyone to be married.

Personally, it does not matter to me which route you take, as long as there are no double standards in the logic. It should not matter to any couple whether they are "officially" married or not, because if they truly love each other, then they need not have an official "seal of approval" by the government.