The one place we differ is the regulation of the state and marriage. I agree that the government should force a church to uphold a marriage that they disagree with. However, I think there are enough benefits of marriage that protecting it legally is important.

I also agree that as much as I hate to admit it, we cannot legislate morality. But, as a Christian, I believe that there are social benefits in following the bible. I think marriage is one of them.

The sad thing is that marriage isn’t what it used to be. The church is doing a better job, but only because there are less non-Christians getting married.

Marriage is not a right.

“Marriage” is, at root, a religious rite. Granted, the rite has been endorsed and granted special privileges by government, but at heart, it is still a religious rite.

Traditional Marriage requires the endorsement of the church. Contemporary Marriage adds the concurrent (or alternative) requirement of endorsement by the state.

Any proceeding that requires an endorsement by an entity other than the affected parties is not a “right”. It is a privilege.

Consenting adults have the right to enter into any relational arrangement they desire. The right exists not because it is enumerated in the Constitution, but because it is an action that meets the only definition of a “right” that makes any sense. However, no one has the “right” to demand the seal of approval upon their relational arrangement by any outside entity. Homosexuals cannot demand that the Catholic Church recognize their relationship as legitimate.

Nor do they have the “right” to demand such recognition by anyone else…including the state.

Religious marriage is an institution of the church and is, therefore, subject to the restrictions and regulations established by that church.

Secular marriage is a state institution and is, therefore, subject to the restrictions and restrictions set by the duly elected representatives of the state.

See the parallels?

Here’s my issue: It is not the role of government to encourage or discourage strictly social or moral behaviors. That’s the Church’s job.

The Government should get completely out of the business of endorsing, rewarding, licensing, recognizing or acknowledging marriages.

Marriage is a religious institution. Government getting involved is what has cheapened the institution in the first place. Marriage is no longer seen as a particularly religious, moral commitment, it is seen as a contractual arrangement that can be easily terminated by agreeing to dissolve the contract.

That’s not what marriage is supposed to be all about. Involvement of secular government is what has caused that state of affairs.

So…get government out of Marriage completely. Many of the state sponsored “privileges” of marriage are unnecessary and frivolous and the ones that ARE necessary (legal next of kin status, emergency decision making, etc) can be determined by legal contract. There is no reason whatsoever for the government to recognize marriages as anything other than a legal contract.

That would return the institution to the honored status of a Sacred Rite while ensuring “equal treatment under the law”.

BTW, that would also deflate all the arguments that homosexuals use to rationalize their claims to a “right” to marriage. All they are doing is attempting to use the issue to forward their goal of complete acceptance of their lifestyle choices. If they can get the STATE to declare the religious rite of Marriage to be a “right”, then their claims to moral acceptance are lent an air of credibility. That’s their goal. It has nothing to do with the legal ramifications of marriage which can already be accomplished through contractual agreements. It has everything to do with shrouding their immoral lifestyle in a disguise of moral acceptability.

Sorry for the dissertation. This is a complicated subject.

I believe defining marriage between a man and a woman will ultimately help society. Numerous studies (even some done and funded by LGBT groups) that homosexual relationships are two-times more likely to break up than hetrosexual couples.

Any child that comes from a broken home can tell you the pain that comes with a divorce. Some divorces are civil; but the majority of them use children as pawns to punish the other spouse. I’m not going to get started in divorces. Notwithstanding this, to put children in this hostile environment is tantamount to giving the child a revolver with 3 bullets and having him play Russian Roulette. If we are making the argument that children cannot consent to making legal agreements, why, then, should we put children in these situations?

Now if a homosexual couple wants to live together, there’s nothing I can do about it. But when the argument is made that private actions have no effect on the public, I have to pause and laugh at the irony of it!

If states want to approve homosexual marriages to increase public revenue, then say that! Don’t hide behind the equal-rights policy because it doesn’t hold water in my book. If you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, why not allow pedosexuals to work as teachers in elementary schools? If we give “equal rights” to them and not to others, they are causing the rift, not the “Christian right”.

You’re talking about two different things here. “Children” being charged as adults for committing heinous crimes of their own volition when it can be clearly demonstrated that they knew what they were doing was wrong and criminal is a very different concept from children being emotionally mature enough to responsibly and with full understanding, consent to enter into a legal contract.

I think you will find that children coerced into crime by adults are typically not tried as adults for the very same reason that children cannot enter into contracts with adults.

I agree that we must be willing to look and consider the logical ends of our laws, my point was that the “logical end” to allowing homosexual marriage is patently wrong.

I think that polygamy could be considered as a logical end to allowing homosexual marriage, because polygamy involves consenting adults in a contractual relationship. The only reasons to prevent it are moral, not legal…much like homosexual marriage.

But those similarities fall flat when relating homosexual marriage with marriage to minors, to animals and to inanimate objects.

Let’s expand the discussion somewhat. Are you opposed to “civil unions” or some other contractual arrangement that would extend all the governmental rights, privileges and responsibilities to ANY two people who choose to enter into the contract, without calling it “marriage”?

Why or why not?

The argument that I here most is, “Why should it matter what two people want to do behind closed doors?”

If that’s the argument, why should it matter what anything happens behind closed doors? Why are there laws for ‘equal treatment’ when there really isn’t equal treatment?

My point is that we must be willing to look and consider the logical ends of our laws. I understand it’s a little absurd. But, at the same time, it took 20-some years to go from absurd and unthinkable to a small legal hurdle.

Again, don’t get me wrong: I don’t think children should be able to marry their parent or enter into marriage. But I can’t help that a few years ago, society as a whole believed homosexuality was a psychological problem. That same stigma still is on pedosexuals. I don’t think they should be barred from schools, listed as sexual offenders, treated as deviants if we are giving those same rights to people who are demanding it now.

Your basic premise relies on the statement “If love was the only qualification…”

Not only is love not the ONLY qualification, it is not a requirement at all. Can the government deny the privileges (and responsibilities) of marriage to a heterosexual couple on the grounds of lack of love? What governmental entity makes that determination and under what standard?

The primary qualification for entering into any legal contract (which, at root, is the basis of any governmental recognition of marriage), is consent.

Children, as a matter of law, if not common sense, are not adults; and, therefore, are incapable of consent. Similarly, non-human animals, plant life and inanimate objects do not have the mental capacity or ability to consent to a contractual arrangement.

Your argument would work if you related it to polygamy, but equating a relationship between consenting adults with a relationship involving an entity that is physically or legally incapable of consent is fallacious.