TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And yet you would take that right away from others. interesting.

Please point to the place in the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution where the right to marry exists.

baldeagle wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

TxA wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Thats vague nonsense insufficient to support against the inalienable rights of individuals to do what they want in a free society. If thats your standard, just about everything in life violates it, and I'd bet good money you'd not like where that chain goes. If everything impacts the village, then the village can control everything.

No, the village cannot control everything and that's what we've been arguing. But it's interesting that you might bring up inalienable rights of individuals. Where do these inalienable rights come from? Do these spring from nature?

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: Yes. It means you can't think of something to show where it has an impact on your marriage.
Unless you want to go down the nice collectiveist route of course. Sorry but that doesn't work for me.

Actually, saying that homosexual marriage does not affect those in the normal definition of marriage and even society as a whole is conforming to the collectivist route. Homosexual marriage falls in line with the collectivist reasoning that morality, and right and wrong are objective and that there really is no wrong as long as what people do does not affect someone else.

You can continue to assert your contention that since no one can (more likely will since it involves sin) state ways in which their marriage is affected by homosexual marriage if you want to have some moral high ground. Tell us ways in which it doesn't. Convince us. Convince us that this is an appropriate way to raise children. Convince us that this is the way God intended for us to live.

Anygunanywhere

cb1000rider wrote:

DEB wrote: It wasn't to very long ago that Homosexuality was considered a mental illness, now it is mainstream?

It was added to the DSM-I as personality disorder (sociopathic) the 50s and removed from the DSM-II 1973. The DSM-V was just released in 2013.

Personally, I'm happy to see how far medicine and psychology has come in 50 years, aren't you?

DEB wrote: They are a minority for a reason, they cannot reproduce.

That statement indicates that it's a genetic defect and can be passed through DNA. Sure you don't want to argue that it's a choice? Alternately, if it is genetic, you're advocating unequal treatment due to the way a person was born. And yes, that strongly compares to racial issues. It's not very fair is it?

It's really too bad that straight couples keep having gay kids! Maybe we should make it illegal for people with the gay gene to reproduce. That might solve the problem!

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I personally am beyond caring now-a-days, but this pushing of deviancy as a normal activity, I refuse to be totally silent. Folks can do what they wish, until it intrudes upon me as this is doing now. I find it strange, can't marry more than one woman, but two people of like sex can get married? Up is down and down is up.

Again, please define exactly how it impacts your marriage.

There's an old expression that aptly describes how any change in society affects you as an individual. You can't get in a pig sty without getting some on you. You may not notice the smell, because you're in the middle of it. To an outside observer it's obvious. Every societal change either strengthens or weakens society. Often there are complex interactions, both positive and negative, that these changes have on society.

A simple example. At one time in America, if a young girl got pregnant, she was whisked off to another town or city to have the baby which was then given up for adoption. Now pregnancy out of wedlock is celebrated and even sought after. This has a direct impact on how your children view marriage and childrearing, and that impact is clearly negative.

So when one takes the attitude live and let live or I don't care what other people do in their private lives, one has simply chosen to ignore how much more difficult it has become to live one's own life in a way that doesn't accord with the new societal norm. It's like when a child asks their parent, did you have sex before you married? If they answer yes, what grounds to they have then to ask their children to abstain until marriage? Even if they say no, the child can respond, well you're just old fuddy duddies, because, after all, no one lives by those rules any more.

Does that clarify it for you?

RoyGBiv wrote:14th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I completely understand the religious objections to gay marriage, and would not endeavor to change anyone's mind in that regard. HOWEVER, when two consenting adults of any stripe decide to commit to a relationship, they should have the Liberty to do so, within the confines of secular law (in this case the age of the parties). The notion that a gay marriage somehow diminishes the value of my heterosexual marriage is simply an opinion. I could just as easily argue that when two men enter into a committed relationship, the value of MY marriage goes UP, as my marriage will have the benefit of offspring.

I think the gay community made a serious error not referring to a homosexual union as something other than "marriage". Religiously, "marriage" IS between a man and a woman. (I am very surprised to see how many religious organizations bless homosexual marriages, but again, they are at Liberty to do so.) Using the term "marriage" is just asking for that unsolvable conflict to be brought to the forefront. That would not have been my strategy. "Civil Union", whatever... would be an infinitely better choice if what you're after is for your union to be recognized within secular law, IMO.

The notion that two people who have spent their lives together, investing in their communities, in their friends and families cannot have a simple, civil remedy for achieving the same legal status and privileges (Estate law, health care, tax law, etc.) as their hetero counterparts is, in my opinion, counter to the 14th Amendment. My union should be recognized under secular law not because it fits the religiously-defined notion of marriage, but because my wife and I signed a contract entering into the relationship (you married folks recall signing that legal document, don't you?). My marriage has the added blessing of my religious organization. This religious blessing is far more sacred to me, but is not the basis under which my marriage is recognized under secular law. At least not for people married in this country.

YMMV

TxA wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Again, please define exactly how it impacts your marriage.

I've seen this asked a few times in this thread, so let me see if I can add some clarity since the concept of a counterfeit is something that's not getting across.

Evidence abounds that traditional marriage enhances an individual’s life span, physical and psychological health, and financial security. As individuals go, so goes the culture; that which stabilizes one benefits all. When considering same-sex marriage, then, the question becomes whether it will weaken the marriage institution, strengthen it, or have no impact on it or the culture that benefits from it. I would argue that it would have a significant weakening effect to marriage, thus having direct impact to my marriage.

You mention divorce and remarriage. One reason for this is more culturally acceptance of adultery. However, no one can reasonably argue that a broader acceptance of adultery and its resulting domestic instability can ever be in the best interest of couples, children, or society at large. Thus, over time, this has a direct impact on all marriage, yours and mine included.

I personally am beyond caring now-a-days, but this pushing of deviancy as a normal activity, I refuse to be totally silent. Folks can do what they wish, until it intrudes upon me as this is doing now. I find it strange, can't marry more than one woman, but two people of like sex can get married? Up is down and down is up.

philip964 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:If your brother dies, you're supposed to marry his wife too.

That's what I remember.

We are starting down a slippery slope.

sarcasm on/ Why is the age of consent so high? Shouldn't "marriage" be allowed once puberty has been reached, isn't that what nature intended. sarcasm off/

TxA wrote:

sunny beach wrote:Polygamy has a long tradition in Human history. It also appears in The Bible, and not in a negative light. So whether we're arguing from a secular or religious basis, there's a much better argument to allow polygamy than there is to sanction same sex marriage.

Hmmm...I think you might want to review the text. While polygamy has a long tradition in human history as you state and was common in antiquity and described in the Old Testament, the practice was never condoned and actually specifically condemned. The text never shies away from people’s warts and misgivings but displays them as they were.

TxA wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Please define exactly how it would harm his marriage.

If we are to begin discussing exactly how it would harm marriage, first we need to define our terms and what marriage "is" first. Then we could begin to see how it might be harmed. Once we have a definition of what marriage "is" then we might ask, what is the "end" of the marriage act?

talltex wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

TxA wrote:

talltex wrote:I've been married to the same woman for 29 years...who someone else wants to marry has no effect on my marriage and I don't have a problem with it.

While I commend you for your 29 year marriage to the same women, I would ask you to rethink your statement that someone else's marriage "has no effect on your marriage."

This is like saying the value of a real dollar in Texas would not be affected by flooding the market with counterfeits in California. Yes, it would be affected because counterfeits degrade the value of all real dollars. Enshrining a false definition of marriage in our laws will inevitably harm all marriages and society. Same-sex marriage does not expand the meaning of marriage, but replaces its historical meaning with a counterfeit.

Please define exactly how it would harm his marriage.

That example is ludicrous. Marriage doesn't have a set "value" that can be diluted by having more of them as dollars do...it doesn't degrade the value of mine in any shape, form or fashion, and it doesn't harm me. I'd much rather see a stable, long term same-sex union than a single mother with kids by 5 different men, that you and I are supporting....THERE'S something that has a demonstrable harm to me. I think that is far less "moral" than a same-sex couple wanting to receive the same legal protections and benefits as you or I, since they pay the same taxes. I've only been married to one...thank goodness!

TxA wrote:

talltex wrote:I've been married to the same woman for 29 years...who someone else wants to marry has no effect on my marriage and I don't have a problem with it.

While I commend you for your 29 year marriage to the same women, I would ask you to rethink your statement that someone else's marriage "has no effect on your marriage."

This is like saying the value of a real dollar in Texas would not be affected by flooding the market with counterfeits in California. Yes, it would be affected because counterfeits degrade the value of all real dollars. Enshrining a false definition of marriage in our laws will inevitably harm all marriages and society. Same-sex marriage does not expand the meaning of marriage, but replaces its historical meaning with a counterfeit.