[NYer]

Related

Couple Celebrates 80th Wedding Anniversary, Shares Secrets to Lasting Marriage

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

 

[muawiyah]

Long before the government got involved in registering marriage, churches did so, and before that, no one registered them yet religious authorities all the way back to the depths of the Ice Age have officiated, or blessed marriage.

We may presume that at some level of whatever human community there was that marriage was noted and approved of all the way back to the time men first began to think as men.

Marriage has its roots in biology.

Gay marriage has its roots in an interest in obtaining benefits that pertain to family life.

Seems to me we might look into modifying the way we extend any tax, insurance or inheritance benefits to families so that we disestablish the gay interest in such things ~ yet, we keep the benefits.

As an example, let's take the 3 generation family ~ the kids, the parents, the now partially dependent grandparents. Why should these folks be restricted from filing joint income tax filings, and simply dividing the income up among all members for that purpose ~ seems to me you could easily take a family with 3 income earners, 10 kids, and turn that into 13 units for purpose of equal taxation ~ at a very low level. Insurance and other elements of life with benefit differentials could be dealt with similarly.

[immadashell]

The inmates are running the asylum. There is no rational basis for anything anymore.

[SatinDoll]

DOMA is unconstitutional. I expect it to go down in flames. Why?

The Federal Government doesn’t have the Constitutional authority, the power, to regulate “marriage”. It isn’t even mentioned.

I discovered the following and believe this to be a good suggestion. Maybe it is too liberating for some, but to me it makes sense.

“The colloquy on same-sex marriage ignores the most compelling alternative: abolish civil marriage. The classic way for a diverse polity to resolve contentious issues with minimum strife is to decentralize and privatize those issues. A world without civil marriage would be a world in which everyone can pursue his or her own vision of marriage without imposing those views on others.”

“Abolishing civil marriage would ultimately be good for marriage by ending the government’s legal monopoly defining the family. The resulting competition among alternative forms of marriage would strengthen the institution, just as competition among religions has made America a more religious society than societies with established churches.”

“Though not without its complications (including the problems of transition), abolishing civil marriage is the best alternative for our diverse society.”

Edward A. Zelinsky
Benjamin N. Cardozo
School of Law
Yeshiva University
New York

[SuziQ]

However, an argument grounded in right reason—without explicit recourse to revelation—is in principle comprehensible to all persons of good will.

That works, when you're dealing with rational people. You can't use reason to argue someone out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place. Most folks who support homosexual marriage do so on the basis of what they believe as 'fairness'. It's an emotional position, not based on anything but feelings. THEY think they're logical, that they're basing their position on 'human rights', and that anyone who disagrees is a racist homophobe. There is simply no reasoning with them.

[Gene Eric]

>> The force of law, then, will impose a fundamentally different understanding of those relationships

And the force of law will persecute those that prefer not to service homosexual behavior.

The govt does not belong in the marriage business.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

A Rational Basis for Marriage between One Man and One Woman

BIOLOGY

[daniel1212]

Arguing against homosexual marriage on the basis of the procreation and education of children is substantive, but it is not its basis, and in time they will likely transplant wombs into men in their quest for equality.

The basis for the exclusion of same gender marriage is that God made men and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6) And that homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept. Nor is motive the determinist factor in laws against illicit relations.

And attempts to force homosexual relations into passages it does not belong to extends even to pro homosexual apologetics on the Bible, and which typically have the effect of negating the authority of Bible and the immutability of any moral laws, which may be seen as a goal. An extensive examination of which attempts may be seen here: http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/homosex_versus_the_bible.html