Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage

Jun 26, '16, 8:50 am

_Abyssinia Forum Elder Prayer Warrior   Join Date: May 20, 2011 Posts: 21,523 Religion: Catholic

Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Bermudians overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriages and civil unions by a greater than two-to-one margin in the referendum yesterday. http://www.royalgazette.com/news/art...e-sex-marriage __________________ Human Life International helps to build the culture of life in more than "100 countries". Please help their mission: https://www.hli.org

#2   Jun 26, '16, 8:53 am

QuidVeritasEst Junior Member   Join Date: January 28, 2015 Posts: 276 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by _Abyssinia http://www.royalgazette.com/news/art...e-sex-marriage By what right do people think they put matters like this to a referendum? The state should never interfere with marriage contracts - if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don't run to the banhammer. This action has no legitimacy when it tries to legislate over the personal lives of others.

#3   Jun 26, '16, 10:41 am

kozlosap Regular Member   Join Date: November 30, 2009 Posts: 2,510 Religion: Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst By what right do people think they put matters like this to a referendum? The state should never interfere with marriage contracts - if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don't run to the banhammer. This action has no legitimacy when it tries to legislate over the personal lives of others.

#4   Jun 26, '16, 11:15 am

Trader Regular Member   Join Date: June 28, 2007 Posts: 3,890 Religion: Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst By what right do people think they put matters like this to a referendum? The state should never interfere with marriage contracts - if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don't run to the banhammer. This action has no legitimacy when it tries to legislate over the personal lives of others. Marriage is not merely a personal contract. It has always been a public union, and law requires witnesses to the exchange of consent between the parties just about everywhere. It needs to be public for the protection of the spouses, but especially for the protection of their children. I agree that there is no reason for the state to register friendships that are not capable of producing children and can be dissolved at any time for any reason. If two or more people want to share property, it is fairly easy to write contracts detailing the property rights of each party. The flaw in your reasoning is to call a same sex union a marriage. It has entirely different ends from marriage.

#5   Jun 26, '16, 12:24 pm

QuidVeritasEst Junior Member   Join Date: January 28, 2015 Posts: 276 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Trader Marriage is not merely a personal contract. It has always been a public union, and law requires witnesses to the exchange of consent between the parties just about everywhere. It needs to be public for the protection of the spouses, but especially for the protection of their children. I agree that there is no reason for the state to register friendships that are not capable of producing children and can be dissolved at any time for any reason. If two or more people want to share property, it is fairly easy to write contracts detailing the property rights of each party. The flaw in your reasoning is to call a same sex union a marriage. It has entirely different ends from marriage. I use marriage because the word has a popular definition in distinction from the sacrament of marriage. Failure to appreciate this is party responsible for the apocalyptic ramblings of "attacks on marriage" espoused by some religious people in the wake of the SCOTA ruling. I imagine that in-lieu of a marriage contract, those performing a ceremony would ensure witnesses are present, or this state would naturally arise, in order to provide legal protection. This remove the potential for secular interference over marriage.

#6   Jun 26, '16, 12:31 pm

ucfengr Regular Member   Join Date: July 25, 2014 Posts: 4,123 Religion: Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst By what right do people think they put matters like this to a referendum? The state should never interfere with marriage contracts - if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don't run to the banhammer. This action has no legitimacy when it tries to legislate over the personal lives of others. Yeah....if I want to marry my sister or brother, what right do the inbred, hillbilly voters have to interfere? Preach against it in your snake-handling churches if you must, but stay out of my personal life.

#7   Jun 26, '16, 12:35 pm

Dwyer Regular Member   Join Date: February 26, 2007 Posts: 1,361 Religion: Byzantine Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst By what right do people think they put matters like this to a referendum? The state should never interfere with marriage contracts - if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don't run to the banhammer. This action has no legitimacy when it tries to legislate over the personal lives of others. It's called Democracy . . . . a form of government the Media and a lot of judges and politicians appear not to like. __________________ "It's a free country; you can say whatever you want." --Old American Saying (U.S. Postal Service stamp-- from 1977 Americana series which extols freedom of speech and features a Speaker's Stand decorated with an American Flag shield.)

#8   Jun 26, '16, 12:39 pm

QuidVeritasEst Junior Member   Join Date: January 28, 2015 Posts: 276 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Dwyer It's called Democracy . . . . a form of government the Media, the judicial system, and a lot of politicians appear not to like. Democracy isn't mob rule of people's private lives, by necessity it governs the actions to be taken on issues that directly effect the entire population. What you describe is tyranny of the majority, and has no place in classically liberal states.

#9   Jun 26, '16, 12:48 pm

Dwyer Regular Member   Join Date: February 26, 2007 Posts: 1,361 Religion: Byzantine Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst Democracy isn't mob rule of people's private lives, by necessity it governs the actions to be taken on issues that directly effect the entire population. What you describe is tyranny of the majority, and has no place in classically liberal states. You have an interesting opinion but political philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau would disagree with you. What you describe is the tyranny of the minority. __________________ "It's a free country; you can say whatever you want." --Old American Saying (U.S. Postal Service stamp-- from 1977 Americana series which extols freedom of speech and features a Speaker's Stand decorated with an American Flag shield.)

#10   Jun 26, '16, 1:12 pm

Sparkythedog Regular Member   Join Date: December 22, 2010 Posts: 730 Religion: None

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Dwyer You have an interesting opinion but political philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau would disagree with you. What you describe is the tyranny of the minority. How is this a tyranny? Are you being forced into a homosexual marriage? The fact that other people are doing something that you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are. __________________ You are strange. Are you not of the Body?

#11   Jun 26, '16, 1:24 pm

Dwyer Regular Member   Join Date: February 26, 2007 Posts: 1,361 Religion: Byzantine Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog How is this a tyranny? Are you being forced into a homosexual marriage? The fact that other people are doing something that you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are. The People, collectively, have a right to decide on a democratic basis and control the environment, including the moral environment, that they live in on a democratic basis without the meddling of an oligarchic super class clique. __________________ "It's a free country; you can say whatever you want." --Old American Saying (U.S. Postal Service stamp-- from 1977 Americana series which extols freedom of speech and features a Speaker's Stand decorated with an American Flag shield.)

#12   Jun 26, '16, 1:25 pm

QuidVeritasEst Junior Member   Join Date: January 28, 2015 Posts: 276 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Dwyer You have an interesting opinion but political philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau would disagree with you. What you describe is the tyranny of the minority. No, it's complete removal of government interference from the personal lives of its subjects. You do not get to run to violent or punitive force to enforce your view on a subject which is confined to the individual.

#13   Jun 26, '16, 2:19 pm

Dwyer Regular Member   Join Date: February 26, 2007 Posts: 1,361 Religion: Byzantine Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst No, it's complete removal of government interference from the personal lives of its subjects. You do not get to run to violent or punitive force to enforce your view on a subject which is confined to the individual. Sorry, I have to disagree with your opinion. I didn't say anything about using "violent" force. Advocating that human liberty is a total license to behave or do whatever you want without regard to any moral standards held by one's community of fellow citizens or the common good is offensive, decadent, and a warped view of human individuality. __________________ "It's a free country; you can say whatever you want." --Old American Saying (U.S. Postal Service stamp-- from 1977 Americana series which extols freedom of speech and features a Speaker's Stand decorated with an American Flag shield.)

#14   Jun 26, '16, 2:49 pm

QuidVeritasEst Junior Member   Join Date: January 28, 2015 Posts: 276 Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Dwyer Sorry, I have to disagree with your opinion. I didn't say anything about using "violent" force. Advocating that human liberty is a total license to behave or do whatever you want without regard to any moral standards held by one's community of fellow citizens or the common good is offensive, decadent, and a warped view of human individuality. The state is inherently violent in this regard, because if someone does not comply with the law, they can be forcibly seized and imprisoned. Not doing something under compulsion to not do something robs the person being compelled of any moral choice - they are not moral or immoral, but merely subject to another's will, in this case, the mob. If you wish to prevent an action for morality's sake, then you must appeal to that person's free will through their intellect. That is the true view of human individuality, it is not subject to cultural, peer-determined whims, and your desire for compulsion is the truly warped view.

#15   Jun 26, '16, 3:19 pm

_Abyssinia Forum Elder Prayer Warrior   Join Date: May 20, 2011 Posts: 21,523 Religion: Catholic

Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst By what right do people think they put matters like this to a referendum? The state should never interfere with marriage contracts - if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don't run to the banhammer. This action has no legitimacy when it tries to legislate over the personal lives of others. Surely the state interferes when a court, courts or politicians try to redefine marriage __________________ Human Life International helps to build the culture of life in more than "100 countries". Please help their mission: https://www.hli.org     Jun 26, '16, 3:37 pm Little Sheep Regular Member   Join Date: January 4, 2016 Posts: 1,766 Religion: Episcopalian Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst Democracy isn't mob rule of people's private lives, by necessity it governs the actions to be taken on issues that directly effect the entire population. What you describe is tyranny of the majority, and has no place in classically liberal states.   #17   Jun 26, '16, 3:39 pm Little Sheep Regular Member   Join Date: January 4, 2016 Posts: 1,766 Religion: Episcopalian Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog How is this a tyranny? Are you being forced into a homosexual marriage? The fact that other people are doing something that you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are. This is the crux of the matter. It's fascinating to me that people who oppose what two individuals choose to do can't absorb this. One day, perhaps! I am ever hopeful on that point.   #18   Jun 26, '16, 3:43 pm _Abyssinia Forum Elder Prayer Warrior   Join Date: May 20, 2011 Posts: 21,523 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Little Sheep This is the crux of the matter. It's fascinating to me that people who oppose what two individuals choose to do can't absorb this. One day, perhaps! I am ever hopeful on that point. Don't you think three or more people that love each other should be able to get legally married? __________________ Human Life International helps to build the culture of life in more than "100 countries". Please help their mission: https://www.hli.org   #19   Jun 26, '16, 4:12 pm Cathoholic Regular Member Forum Supporter   Join Date: June 8, 2005 Posts: 3,446 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage QuidVertisEst. You put forth a principle that has a Government hands off view in marriage. ucfengr asked you what if brothers and sisters want to "marry" each other too? Quote: Yeah....if I want to marry my sister or brother, what right do the inbred, hillbilly voters have to interfere? Trent Horn has asked (on Catholic Answers Live radio) what if "granny" wants to "marry" her grandkid? I think ucfenger (and other readers of this thread) deserves an answer. Why not a group of kids and old folks? Why not throw in a few animals into the group? Can you "marry" dead people? I think you need to go beyond what you think about specifics and put out principles. I'll be interested in the principles you are going to put forth here. God bless. Cathoholic   #20   Jun 26, '16, 5:02 pm josh987654321 Regular Member   Join Date: March 14, 2013 Posts: 5,266 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Trader Marriage is not merely a personal contract. It has always been a public union, and law requires witnesses to the exchange of consent between the parties just about everywhere. It needs to be public for the protection of the spouses, but especially for the protection of their children. I agree that there is no reason for the state to register friendships that are not capable of producing children and can be dissolved at any time for any reason. If two or more people want to share property, it is fairly easy to write contracts detailing the property rights of each party. The flaw in your reasoning is to call a same sex union a marriage. It has entirely different ends from marriage. Exactly right. God Bless You Josh __________________ Jesus to St Faustina You please Me most when you meditate on My Sorrowful Passion. (Diary, 1512) The greatest misery does not stop Me from uniting Myself to a soul, but where there is pride, I am not there. (Diary, 1563) We resemble God most when we forgive our neighbors. (Diary, 1148)   #21   Jun 26, '16, 5:06 pm mikekle Veteran Member   Join Date: August 3, 2012 Posts: 10,461 Religion: raised catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst Democracy isn't mob rule of people's private lives, by necessity it governs the actions to be taken on issues that directly effect the entire population. What you describe is tyranny of the majority, and has no place in classically liberal states. Well, remember what happened when voters rejected SSM in CA awhile back (prop 8). Problem is, a majority of the population will have to agree there is a tyrannical Gvt in place before efforts can begin in order to shut it down...this is never going to happen, at least in the US, far too many people today take the Govt side, and/or do not believe tyranny is in place...that shows how sneaky and manipulative our modern Govt has become, they essentially found a way around( a loophole if you will), a big part of the nations Constitution. I really believe there are so naive people out there, they would have to hear straight from the tyrannical power ...to literally announce itself to be tyrannical before they could even recognize it or agree revolution needs to happen...well, DUH, that never going to happen. LOL Of course such a Govt would want to hide what it really is, and if they can get a large number of the population to fall for their lies, even better.   #22   Jun 26, '16, 5:11 pm gracepoole Senior Member   Join Date: June 25, 2011 Posts: 7,043 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Cathoholic QuidVertisEst. You put forth a principle that has a Government hands off view in marriage. ucfengr asked you what if brothers and sisters want to "marry" each other too? Trent Horn has asked (on Catholic Answers Live radio) what if "granny" wants to "marry" her grandkid? I think ucfenger (and other readers of this thread) deserves an answer. Why not a group of kids and old folks? Why not throw in a few animals into the group? Can you "marry" dead people? I think you need to go beyond what you think about specifics and put out principles. I'll be interested in the principles you are going to put forth here. God bless. Cathoholic The examples you've identified here are between one consenting adult and children, animals, or dead people (all of whom can't cognitively consent to marriage).   #23   Jun 26, '16, 5:17 pm josh987654321 Regular Member   Join Date: March 14, 2013 Posts: 5,266 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by gracepoole The examples you've identified here are between one consenting adult and children, animals, or dead people (all of whom can't cognitively consent to marriage). Children are not really at the age of reason, so the lack of consent I think is a good argument, dead people, don't exist here anymore, so it hardly effects them, unless it's emotional manipulation of someone's dead loved one. Don't know how that would work, but there would be good grounds for rejecting it. A better one would be property, what if one wanted to marry their house? it's their own property, so they don't need consent, it doesn't harm you or anyone else, should we put this erroneous view of marriage into law? Not only that, but the other slippery slope ones are polygamy and incest, especially since sex and procreation are now nobodies business, why would anyone be against polygamy or incest once taking sex and procreation out of the equation? Same sex marriage is a total lie and it's main aim is breaking down and destroying the family, whether those who support it intend that result or not. If two mums are equal, what's so special about a father? and if two fathers are equal, what's so special about a mother? and what's so special about a child's biological parents? If a homosexual couple wish to live together and share their lives together like a marriage between a man and a woman, than they should be free to do so, they should not be free to change the definition of marriage and argue equality, because it's not a marriage and it's not equal. As Trader mentioned, if procreation and sex are taken out of the equation (which is done to legislate same sex marriage) then there really is no reason for the government to be involved at all with this new erroneous view of marriage. I hope this has helped God Bless You Thank you for reading Josh __________________ Jesus to St Faustina You please Me most when you meditate on My Sorrowful Passion. (Diary, 1512) The greatest misery does not stop Me from uniting Myself to a soul, but where there is pride, I am not there. (Diary, 1563) We resemble God most when we forgive our neighbors. (Diary, 1148)   #24   Jun 26, '16, 5:22 pm estesbob Prayer Warrior Forum Supporter   Join Date: May 8, 2005 Posts: 48,606 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by _Abyssinia http://www.royalgazette.com/news/art...e-sex-marriage It has always failed in referendums Almost always imposed prejudicial fiat   #25   Jun 26, '16, 5:24 pm estesbob Prayer Warrior Forum Supporter   Join Date: May 8, 2005 Posts: 48,606 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by gracepoole The examples you've identified here are between one consenting adult and children, animals, or dead people (all of whom can't cognitively consent to marriage). So you would have no problem with a grandmother marrying her adult granddaughter?   #26   Jun 26, '16, 5:30 pm mikekle Veteran Member   Join Date: August 3, 2012 Posts: 10,461 Religion: raised catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by josh987654321 Children are not really at the age of reason, so the lack of consent I think is a good argument, dead people, don't exist here anymore, so it hardly effects them, unless it's emotional manipulation of someone's dead loved one. Don't know how that would work, but there would be good grounds for rejecting it. A better one would be property, what if one wanted to marry their house? it's their own property, so they don't need consent, it doesn't harm you or anyone else, should we put this erroneous view of marriage into law? Not only that, but the other slippery slope ones are polygamy and incest, especially since sex and procreation are now nobodies business, why would anyone be against polygamy or incest once taking sex and procreation out of the equation? Public sentiment could be slowly and methodically changed on these things too, in order to put them in an 'acceptable' light. Look back just 40-50 years, they have done a bang up job at swaying the public sentiment/ opinion about gay marriage and homosexuality in general...so they could do the same thing with any of the things you mentioned imo. Ive believed for awhile now, the next likely 'group' trying to fight for rights and acceptance will be pedophiles.   #27   Jun 26, '16, 5:32 pm _Abyssinia Forum Elder Prayer Warrior   Join Date: May 20, 2011 Posts: 21,523 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by estesbob It has always failed in referendums Almost always imposed prejudicial fiat It has not always failed because it did win on the ballot in Ireland and in three US states I think... but by and large when it has been to put to a public vote, I think, majorities of voters have voted to protect marriage between one man and one woman. __________________ Human Life International helps to build the culture of life in more than "100 countries". Please help their mission: https://www.hli.org   #28   Jun 26, '16, 5:42 pm josh987654321 Regular Member   Join Date: March 14, 2013 Posts: 5,266 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by mikekle Public sentiment could be slowly and methodically changed on these things too, in order to put them in an 'acceptable' light. Look back just 40-50 years, they have done a bang up job at swaying the public sentiment/ opinion about gay marriage and homosexuality in general...so they could do the same thing with any of the things you mentioned imo. Ive believed for awhile now, the next likely 'group' trying to fight for rights and acceptance will be pedophiles. I would be very surprised if such became the case, since pedophilia is criminal because it involves manipulating or abusing a child. Consent cannot be fully given by both parties since the child is not capable of it. So I don't think that is likely, but if it was ever argued for, I think people would get a sharp wake up call, not only that, but the biggest difference would be when it comes to same sex marriage, I just think people should stop messing with 'marriage' nor argue 'equality' but when it comes to pedophilia, they should be arrested and imprisoned for sexually abusing a child. Not only that, but the whole 'born this way' rhetoric that Is used to justify homosexual acts, can also be used in the exact same way when it comes to pedophilia and other criminal things. I hope this has helped God Bless You Thank you for reading Josh __________________ Jesus to St Faustina You please Me most when you meditate on My Sorrowful Passion. (Diary, 1512) The greatest misery does not stop Me from uniting Myself to a soul, but where there is pride, I am not there. (Diary, 1563) We resemble God most when we forgive our neighbors. (Diary, 1148)   #29   Jun 26, '16, 5:48 pm Joseph3 Banned   Join Date: March 17, 2016 Posts: 2,137 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage God bless the people of Bermuda. They rejected the New World Order agenda. I wish we could have a referendum to overturn same-sex marriage in the United States.   #30   Jun 26, '16, 5:55 pm josh987654321 Regular Member   Join Date: March 14, 2013 Posts: 5,266 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog How is this a tyranny? Are you being forced into a homosexual marriage? The fact that other people are doing something that you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are. How is this tyranny, are you being forced to marry a house? or multiple husbands/wives?, or your brother(s) or sister(s)? The fact that other people are doing something you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are. ..... See, others can do it too. If two mums are equal, what's so special about a father? If two fathers are equal, what's so special about a mother? What's so special about a child's biological parents? I guess my views are just distasteful to anyone who wants to intentionally deprive a child of their mother or father and argue 'equality' with such alternatives. God Bless You Thank you for reading Josh __________________ Jesus to St Faustina You please Me most when you meditate on My Sorrowful Passion. (Diary, 1512) The greatest misery does not stop Me from uniting Myself to a soul, but where there is pride, I am not there. (Diary, 1563) We resemble God most when we forgive our neighbors. (Diary, 1148) Jun 26, '16, 6:08 pm Ojo Feliz Regular Member   Join Date: April 4, 2016 Posts: 719 Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst By what right do people think they put matters like this to a referendum? The state should never interfere with marriage contracts - if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don't run to the banhammer. . Same-sex marriage is already banned in Bermuda. The non-binding referendum was scheduled because the government had been considering removing the ban, and it wanted to assess public opinion on the topic. Proponents of same-sex marriage are now expected to use the judicial system tin an attempt to overturn the ban. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/b...-vote-40116008   #32   Jun 26, '16, 6:12 pm QuidVeritasEst Junior Member   Join Date: January 28, 2015 Posts: 276 Religion: Roman Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Cathoholic QuidVertisEst. You put forth a principle that has a Government hands off view in marriage. ucfengr asked you what if brothers and sisters want to "marry" each other too? Trent Horn has asked (on Catholic Answers Live radio) what if "granny" wants to "marry" her grandkid? I think ucfenger (and other readers of this thread) deserves an answer. Why not a group of kids and old folks? Why not throw in a few animals into the group? Can you "marry" dead people? I think you need to go beyond what you think about specifics and put out principles. I'll be interested in the principles you are going to put forth here. God bless. Cathoholic Handing off the awarding of marriage certificates does not equal toleration, I simply feel this is the best method to preserve religious freedom, in that it removes the definition of marriage from public debate. What people must understand about this debate is that Gay-couples, modern liberals, and quite a large section of society in general, understand the word "marriage" simply as a public expression of love. They are NOT referring to sacramental marriage, if only because they don't understand what that means. Most people in the public are not aware of the special qualifications of sacramental marriage, and sacramental marriage is not the same as legal marriage. Language is arbitrary and fluid - that marriage has become a loan-word for "loving relationship" in the public eye should be of no concern to the teachings of the Church. Anyway, onto your examples. "Granny marrying her grandkids" - (Assuming the grandkids are of legal age) This is objectively wrong because the products of incest are often deformed, sickly, or stillborn. This is unlikely to garner popular support. "Kids and old folks" - Legal consent is well enshrined in public consensus. Children are not observed fully understand a marriage, therefore, cohabitation in this manner would still be considered a crime. "Animals" - Same issue as before, legal consent is absent, since an animal is not sapient. Additionally, most still intrinsically understand that marriage should offer support and companionship in a deep way, animals are not capable of this. "The Dead" - Dead people cannot voice consent "Hareems" - Humans are inherently jealous - these would tear themselves apart I will also qualify, gay-marriage is hardly comparable to any of these, since the pairs are consenting adults. I think you also demean the Church's capacity to evangelise and to articulate the truth of its own beliefs when you suggest we should run to coercive force to do our work for us. Jesus showed grace to sinners, so should we.   #33   Jun 26, '16, 7:27 pm Cathoholic Regular Member Forum Supporter   Join Date: June 8, 2005 Posts: 3,446 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage (I'm going to preface my remarks with, I am NOT supporting these re-definitions of marriage.) QuidVertisEst. You said . . . Quote: This is objectively wrong because the products of incest are often deformed, sickly, or stillborn. This is unlikely to garner popular support. That's your opinion. So what? If we can medically fix this ("sickly" etc.), should incest THEN be OK in your world? Who is the state, that they can "moralize" marriage to others? What about you "majority" moralizers ("popular support" that YOU cited) getting off the backs of the oppressed minority? Quote: "Kids and old folks" - Legal consent is well enshrined in public consensus. Children are not observed fully understand a marriage, therefore, cohabitation in this manner would still be considered a crime. If its so "enshrined" WHY allow kids to get abortions, or sex change operations, or in some countires state assisted "suicide" of children? And the heck with "public consensus" and "enshrinement". Maybe its time for a change. Where is your "defining principles"? Quote: "Animals" - Same issue as before, legal consent is absent, since an animal is not sapient. Additionally, most still intrinsically understand that marriage should offer support and companionship in a deep way, animals are not capable of this. Who cares about YOUR OPINION about aiming for "support and companionship in a deep way"? Quote: "The Dead" - Dead people cannot voice consent. Yes but who cares? They can't "object" either. Quote: "Hareems" - Humans are inherently jealous - these would tear themselves apart Why do YOU think the state ought to be involved over a little petty jealousy? What if the gals and the kids who are the guy's "spouses" get along great? Then what? Why should some guy who wants a harem have his "rights" restricted because of somebody else's haremphobia? Quote: I will also qualify, gay-marriage is hardly comparable to any of these, since the pairs are consenting adults. How many? Why "pairs"? What about the passing on of society and the compatibility with nature for "life giving love" and all of that? Is that "irrelevant"? Does that not affect society as a whole? Quote: I think you also demean the Church's capacity to evangelise and to articulate the truth of its own beliefs when you suggest we should run to coercive force to do our work for us. Jesus showed grace to sinners, so should we. I'm glad you said this because I was thinking the same thing about what YOU have said. If I want to be a high school health teacher, I now have to face "coercive force" to teach something I think is wrong. If I'm a photographer, in your paradigm, I have to put up with "coercive force" as to picking my customers and clients. If I want to rent out my barn for "wedding" receptions, but don't want to be subject to things that I think are bad for society like a gal getting married to her pooch, I am being subject to "coercive force". If I send my child to the public school, will he or she be exposed to this from the state too? "Opting out" in some other areas like school "health" personnel putting some of America's daughters on the pill or whisking them away (in some cases across state lines to kill their babies) without parental consent hasn't worked the way it should. Why not a little compassion for the adult teacher that wants to "marry" her little boy student? After all, Jesus showed grace to sinners. Shouldn't WE? Your following quote emphasis mine. Quote: I simply feel this is the best method to preserve . . . Why should harem supporters be concerned about YOUR "feelings"? What if pooch-marriage suuporters think YOU are just tossing out "apocalyptic ramblings of "attacks on marriage"" and "spewing hate"? WHO is right? Them or you? Gracepoole. You mentioned . . . Quote: The examples you've identified here are between one consenting adult and children, animals, or dead people (all of whom can't cognitively consent to marriage). So what? What "cognitive" standard do YOU insist on? Should we make it force of law? Why all the "judgmentalism" for people in other countries who want to "marry" a nine year old girl? Who needs YOUR definition of "consent"? So I am still looking for a PRINCIPLE of what YOU . . . "one man one woman only marriage opposers" think "marrage" is . . . and WHY should your opinion trump somebody else's opinion?   #34   Jun 26, '16, 10:20 pm Sparkythedog Regular Member   Join Date: December 22, 2010 Posts: 730 Religion: None Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by josh987654321 How is this tyranny, are you being forced to marry a house? or multiple husbands/wives?, or your brother(s) or sister(s)? The fact that other people are doing something you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are. ..... See, others can do it too. So, you're saying you agree with me? Quote: If two mums are equal, what's so special about a father? If two fathers are equal, what's so special about a mother? What's so special about a child's biological parents? I guess my views are just distasteful to anyone who wants to intentionally deprive a child of their mother or father and argue 'equality' with such alternatives. God Bless You Thank you for reading Josh This has nothing to do with people consenting to marriage. But to address your comment: children do not have a right to be raised by their biological parents. I don't believe that you really hold that view anyways. Is it better to be raised by a loving adopted or foster parent than by an unfit biological one? Would it be better to be raised by an adopted parent who wants a child than one who doesn't? Why are you not ranting about the evils of adoption agencies who have more of an impact removing biological parents from their children than all gay families combined? __________________ You are strange. Are you not of the Body?   #35   Jun 27, '16, 3:12 am lemongrass80 Junior Member   Join Date: May 5, 2014 Posts: 236 Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Trader Marriage is not merely a personal contract. It has always been a public union, and law requires witnesses to the exchange of consent between the parties just about everywhere. It needs to be public for the protection of the spouses, but especially for the protection of their children. I agree that there is no reason for the state to register friendships that are not capable of producing children and can be dissolved at any time for any reason. If two or more people want to share property, it is fairly easy to write contracts detailing the property rights of each party. The flaw in your reasoning is to call a same sex union a marriage. It has entirely different ends from marriage. How does it have different ends than a straight married couple who choose to remain childless?   #36   Jun 27, '16, 7:39 am Monkey1976 Regular Member   Join Date: May 1, 2007 Posts: 2,427 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst "Granny marrying her grandkids" - (Assuming the grandkids are of legal age) This is objectively wrong because the products of incest are often deformed, sickly, or stillborn. This is unlikely to garner popular support. First, most grandmothers are past their childbearing years. Second, the fact that the US can call the inherently sterile sexualized friendship between two men "marriage" shows that the legal definition of marriage no longer has anything to do with children. Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst "Kids and old folks" - Legal consent is well enshrined in public consensus. Children are not observed fully understand a marriage, therefore, cohabitation in this manner would still be considered a crime. We're already seeing that children of any age are considered competent and knowledgeable enough to claim that they are "really" the opposite sex, and that claim has been given sufficient weight by the government that it is mandated that these children be allowed to use whatever restroom and facilities they wish. Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst "Animals" - Same issue as before, legal consent is absent, since an animal is not sapient. Additionally, most still intrinsically understand that marriage should offer support and companionship in a deep way, animals are not capable of this. There's already a push on to grant animals full legal rights. Why would this not include marriage? To steal a bit of propaganda: "Why are you against love?" Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst "The Dead" - Dead people cannot voice consent Yet they can leave legally binding documents expressing their wishes. What would block a person from expressing post-mortem consent in their will? Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst "Hareems" - Humans are inherently jealous - these would tear themselves apart Polygamy is something that has actually been practiced quite successfully in history (unlike same-sex "marriage"). Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst I will also qualify, gay-marriage is hardly comparable to any of these, since the pairs are consenting adults. As same-sex "marriage" itself shows, any legal limitations on who may marry are now entirely arbitrary. Once children - even in potentia - are removed from the equation, there is no legal rationale behind limitations based on age, number, species, or even life. Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst I think you also demean the Church's capacity to evangelise and to articulate the truth of its own beliefs when you suggest we should run to coercive force to do our work for us. Jesus showed grace to sinners, so should we. By that logic, we should have no laws at all.   #37   Jun 27, '16, 7:49 am estesbob Prayer Warrior Forum Supporter   Join Date: May 8, 2005 Posts: 48,606 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by QuidVeritasEst Anyway, onto your examples. "Granny marrying her grandkids" - (Assuming the grandkids are of legal age) This is objectively wrong because the products of incest are often deformed, sickly, or stillborn. This is unlikely to garner popular support. . There would be no problem, then, if a Grandmother married her adult granddaughter? I mean why should we stand in the way of "love"   #38   Jun 27, '16, 8:46 am Trader Regular Member   Join Date: June 28, 2007 Posts: 3,890 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by lemongrass80 How does it have different ends than a straight married couple who choose to remain childless? That is a good question. A straight couple who choose to frustrate one of the ends of marriage is exactly like the same-sex couple. It is the reason why contraception is always morally wrong. The two ends of marriage are the unity of the couple and procreation. Both are necessary for a marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years, taught in Scripture, and reaffirmed by Jesus himself and his Church since its beginning. You can find many fine articles on this by simply doing a search for "two ends of marriage."   #39   Jun 27, '16, 9:01 am Sy Noe Senior Member   Join Date: October 7, 2013 Posts: 8,030 Religion: Non practicing Roman Catholic with mainline Christian faith Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Trader That is a good question. A straight couple who choose to frustrate one of the ends of marriage is exactly like the same-sex couple. It is the reason why contraception is always morally wrong. The two ends of marriage are the unity of the couple and procreation. Both are necessary for a marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years, taught in Scripture, and reaffirmed by Jesus himself and his Church since its beginning. You can find many fine articles on this by simply doing a search for "two ends of marriage." So I guess next Bermuda should vote to ban heterosexual marriage in cases where the couple are not open to having babies. __________________ "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage... it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time." "The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong." (Pope Francis)   #40   Jun 27, '16, 9:03 am JimG Forum Elder   Join Date: May 23, 2004 Posts: 28,268 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage So, the people of Bermuda have not yet tossed aside common sense as to the nature of man, woman, marriage and family. No doubt, the relativists will need to unleash the courts against them. Reality can not be allowed to stand. There are many advocates for fantasy, but perhaps Bermuda will remain an oasis of reason. One can hope.   #41   Jun 27, '16, 9:07 am ARSpade Regular Member   Join Date: April 2, 2013 Posts: 991 Religion: RC Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Sy Noe So I guess next Bermuda should vote to ban heterosexual marriage in cases where the couple are not open to having babies. Bermuda can do what it wants. Maybe you shouldn't be so culturally imperialist. __________________ My conscience said whatever I posted is fine for a Catholic. Don't violate my conscience, bro. "God take away your alms. For as you live by charity, so do I by war, and to me it is as genuine a vocation as yours.” – Sir John Hawkwood Last edited by ARSpade; Jun 27, '16 at 9:18 am.   #42   Jun 27, '16, 9:10 am abucs Regular Member   Join Date: August 28, 2007 Posts: 3,168 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage We are fragmenting into different tribes with different moral codes. Under this context the state choosing certain moral codes over others will necessarily alienate someone, and probably in the longer run, everyone. Eventually, I do not believe the state will survive the continual and aggressive culture war attacks.   #43   Jun 27, '16, 10:02 am QuidVeritasEst Junior Member   Join Date: January 28, 2015 Posts: 276 Religion: Roman Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Monkey1976 First, most grandmothers are past their childbearing years. Second, the fact that the US can call the inherently sterile sexualized friendship between two men "marriage" shows that the legal definition of marriage no longer has anything to do with children. We're already seeing that children of any age are considered competent and knowledgeable enough to claim that they are "really" the opposite sex, and that claim has been given sufficient weight by the government that it is mandated that these children be allowed to use whatever restroom and facilities they wish. There's already a push on to grant animals full legal rights. Why would this not include marriage? To steal a bit of propaganda: "Why are you against love?" Yet they can leave legally binding documents expressing their wishes. What would block a person from expressing post-mortem consent in their will? Polygamy is something that has actually been practiced quite successfully in history (unlike same-sex "marriage"). As same-sex "marriage" itself shows, any legal limitations on who may marry are now entirely arbitrary. Once children - even in potentia - are removed from the equation, there is no legal rationale behind limitations based on age, number, species, or even life. By that logic, we should have no laws at all. You miss the point - by that logic, we should limit our judicial system to take punitive measures against those who would cause external harm. The enforcement of laws is justified as society protecting itself from those who would do it harm, governing the personal lives of others falls beyond this remit. I thought you American style conservatives were all for limited government. Regardless, the "slippery slope" argument against gay-unions (since I know you'll have a fit if I call it marriage) is irrelevant - the possibility of setting a precedent is irrelevant if this singular change is born out of legal consent. Also, I would point out that the majority of people I socialise with, living in liberal England, who are vaguely "pro-trans", are visibly disgusted when discussing reports of sex-changes amongst youth. Perhaps we ought to educate people on the concept of legal consent better in schools, rather than use ignorance and poor-logical extrapolation to encroach on people's personal lives by force.   #44   Jun 27, '16, 10:04 am QuidVeritasEst Junior Member   Join Date: January 28, 2015 Posts: 276 Religion: Roman Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by abucs We are fragmenting into different tribes with different moral codes. Under this context the state choosing certain moral codes over others will necessarily alienate someone, and probably in the longer run, everyone. Eventually, I do not believe the state will survive the continual and aggressive culture war attacks. But by definition of being a Catholic, and indeed subscribing to any monotheistic religion, you acknowledge objectivism, and therefore realise that these different moral codes are perversions of objective values. That we perceive morality differently through different cultural lenses doesn't mean that all cultures are equal or that morality is subjective.   #45   Jun 28, '16, 6:14 am josh987654321 Regular Member   Join Date: March 14, 2013 Posts: 5,266 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog So, you're saying you agree with me? Well I certainly don't agree with polygamy or incest, and I don't agree with changing the definition of marriage to include such things as 'property' nor do I agree with same sex marriage. I used polygamy, incest and property, to see whether you would draw the line somewhere and on what grounds considering your current arguments, so far you haven't drawn any line in the sand over further redefinitions of marriage. Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog children do not have a right to be raised by their biological parents. Ouch. I disagree. As far as possible, society should be aiming for every child to be raised by their healthy biological parents, mum and dad. It doesn't always happen for a whole host of different reasons, but it doesn't change the goal and the alternatives are certainly not equal. Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog I don't believe that you really hold that view anyways. I absolutely hold that view. Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog Is it better to be raised by a loving adopted or foster parent than by an unfit biological one? Of course, but it's better, much better, to be raised by their healthy biological parents and as far as possible this should be encouraged and upheld especially. Not argued as equivalent to other scenarios such as two dads and an IVF mother you will probably never know, or if you do, in an estranged way. Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog Would it be better to be raised by an adopted parent who wants a child than one who doesn't? It would be better again, if the biological parents wanted their own child and this should be the goal that is aimed for by society. Not the lesser of two evils, and especially not arguing 'equality' which is what same sex marriage does, hence the term 'marriage equality' And as for this argument, I agree, so you support us when we say that a mother who doesn't want her child should give them up for adoption rather than kill them in her womb with abortion? It's ironic that on one hand, society pretends to care about a home for unwanted adoptive children hence their support of same sex marriage, yet on the other hand thinks it's totally cool to encourage mothers to kill their unwanted children in the womb. Besides, many homosexual couples are not acquiring children this way, they are using a third party and IVF, to bring a child into the world with the intention of depriving them of their mother or father, they set it up that way from the beginning which makes it so very wrong. Admittedly, stopping same sex marriage will not necessarily stop this, but it will certainly discourage it, what do people believe they are encouraging/advocating when arguing for 'marriage equality'? Marriage = Family, Family = Kids every child has a biological mother and father, hence the importance of faithfulness, monogamy, man + woman. Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog Why are you not ranting about the evils of adoption agencies who have more of an impact removing biological parents from their children than all gay families combined? Adoption agencies don't go around removing children from their biological parents, you have it back to front, the biological parents give their child up for adoption for a whole host of different reasons which makes it very different. I hope this has helped God Bless You Thank you for reading Josh __________________ Jesus to St Faustina You please Me most when you meditate on My Sorrowful Passion. (Diary, 1512) The greatest misery does not stop Me from uniting Myself to a soul, but where there is pride, I am not there. (Diary, 1563) We resemble God most when we forgive our neighbors. (Diary, 1148) Last edited by josh987654321; Jun 28, '16 at 6:33 am.   Jun 28, '16, 1:23 pm Cathoholic Regular Member Forum Supporter   Join Date: June 8, 2005 Posts: 3,446 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage QuidVeritasEst. You said: Quote: Also, I would point out that the majority of people I socialise with, living in liberal England, who are vaguely "pro-trans", are visibly disgusted when discussing reports of sex-changes amongst youth. So what? What if next year your pro-trans-sexual friends think trans-sexualizing children IS now ok? (What if your pro-trans-sexual friends change their minds? The children can’t do trans-sexual surgery and subsequent hormonal alteration against their nature themselves. So is it THEN reasonable to trans-sexualize our youth?) THEN is sex-changes among youth OK? How about if these gender confused boys still want to remain boys biologically, but identify as a woman psychologically? Then what? Do your pro trans-sexual friends think it is OK to force these boys to shower in gym with our daughters if that's what the gender-confused kids want to do? Why or why not? - - - - - - QuidVeritasEst. You also said: Quote: Regardless, the "slippery slope" argument against gay-unions (since I know you'll have a fit if I call it marriage) is irrelevant I discussed other sexual deviants in post 33 here. I am not using the fallacy of a “slippery slope”. If I used the fallacy of a slippery slope I would be saying: “Well if we OK homosexual ‘marriage’, then it will necessarily lead to intergenerational marriage.” (or some other deviant practice). But I didn’t make that argument. Nor did Monkey1976. I want you to tell me the PRINCIPLE of how you are going to define marriage that won’t include other deviants. Not that one sexual deviation necessarily leads to another. And I ALSO asked you WHY we should hold to YOUR definition over others. And I have not heard an answer yet. Just like I pointed out in post 19 that ucfengr asked you the same type of thing (and you have not answered THAT either). QUOTE: ucfengr asked you what if brothers and sisters want to "marry" each other too? Quote: Yeah....if I want to marry my sister or brother, what right do the inbred, hillbilly voters have to interfere? Yet QuidVeritasEst, you have managed to have “answers” of insults or other irrelevant “answers” against people who value traditional marriage in society (these are mainly Christians—Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians). And many of these same Christians are annoyed and irritated with being berated with insults for their views, especially with being reprimanded from fellow Christians. Here are some of your insults or non-sequiturs: Quote: . . . if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don't run to the banhammer. This action has no legitimacy when it tries to legislate over the personal lives of others. . . . . . . . . responsible for the apocalyptic ramblings of "attacks on marriage" espoused by some religious people . . . . . . . . What you describe is tyranny of the majority . . . . . . . . You do not get to run to violent or punitive force to enforce your view on a subject which is confined to the individual. . . . . . . . . it is not subject to cultural, peer-determined whims, and your desire for compulsion is the truly warped view. . . . . . . . . I will also qualify, gay-marriage is hardly comparable to any of these (other sexual deviant practices), since the pairs are consenting adults.. . . . . . . . I think you also demean the Church's capacity to evangelise and to articulate the truth of its own beliefs when you suggest we should run to coercive force to do our work for us. Jesus showed grace to sinners, so should we. . . . . . . . I thought you American style conservatives were all for limited government. . . . . . . . . Perhaps we ought to educate people on the concept of legal consent better in schools, rather than use ignorance and poor-logical extrapolation to encroach on people's personal lives by force. . . . . The main “poor-logical extrapolation” I have seen here on this thread QuidVeritasEst is the fallacy of equivocation from your answers. When I implicitly asked what your PRINCIPLES were for defining marriage and WHY you think they are worthy of societal adaptation over other people’s views, I got the subject changed by either you ignoring the points or implying the fallacy of the “slippery slope” was being invoked on the thread. So I think the issue still needs to be addressed by you since you seemed to be leveling charges against traditional marriage supporters here. What are YOUR PRINCIPLES for alternatives QuidVeritasEst? And WHY should we impose THEM upon society as a whole?   #47   Jun 28, '16, 3:34 pm Little Sheep Regular Member   Join Date: January 4, 2016 Posts: 1,766 Religion: Episcopalian Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by _Abyssinia Don't you think three or more people that love each other should be able to get legally married? I don't, but the Bible does. So maybe I'm wrong.   #48   Jun 28, '16, 6:51 pm josh987654321 Regular Member   Join Date: March 14, 2013 Posts: 5,266 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Little Sheep I don't, but the Bible does. So maybe I'm wrong. No it doesn't, the bible contains both the New and Old Testaments, if you ignore Christ and the New Testament, you may have a valid point, but that is not the case, hence why we are 'Christians' and the Catholic Church recognizes marriage as defined by Christ. I hope this has helped God Bless You Thank you for reading Josh __________________ Jesus to St Faustina You please Me most when you meditate on My Sorrowful Passion. (Diary, 1512) The greatest misery does not stop Me from uniting Myself to a soul, but where there is pride, I am not there. (Diary, 1563) We resemble God most when we forgive our neighbors. (Diary, 1148)   #49   Jun 28, '16, 7:09 pm gnjsdad Regular Member   Join Date: February 16, 2005 Posts: 5,190 Religion: Catholic Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by Sparkythedog How is this a tyranny? Are you being forced into a homosexual marriage? The fact that other people are doing something that you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are. There is no such thing as"homosexual marriage". It's what's called an oxymoron. __________________ The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge. Pope John Paul II Laborem Exercens (19)   #50   Jun 28, '16, 8:44 pm MartinJordan Regular Member   Join Date: November 19, 2009 Posts: 3,667 Religion: καθολικός Re: Voters roundly reject same-sex marriage Quote: Originally Posted by gnjsdad There is no such thing as"homosexual marriage". It's what's called an oxymoron. MJ __________________ Whenever anyone obeys what Christ has said, God’s love comes to perfection in him. 1 John 2:5 My Lord and My God