tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post8678733660143318099..comments2023-05-14T03:44:54.726-05:00Comments on CourageMan: The awful Democratic debateCourageManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-64337025240974157632007-09-09T01:23:00.000-05:002007-09-09T01:23:00.000-05:00"Said another way, committed married couples want ..."Said another way, committed married couples want to get married to gain tax benefits to better raise children and to secure their retirement benefits for their partner."<BR/><BR/>Cold calculation worthy of a medieval Viscount. If nothing else, you've sucked the humanity right out of the institution.Hezekiah Garrett https://www.blogger.com/profile/09133184815764109759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-57418336538470861962007-07-31T11:57:00.000-05:002007-07-31T11:57:00.000-05:00Winnipeg Catholic,I have to agree with much of wha...Winnipeg Catholic,<BR/><BR/>I have to agree with much of what you say. I was married once and I understand your point. I am not an advocate of gays getting married, but I am an advocate of having the right to. If most gay people truly understood some of the legalities and implications of civil marriage, many would not be interested.<BR/><BR/>-JeffAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-3317040563887170982007-07-30T20:09:00.000-05:002007-07-30T20:09:00.000-05:00I'm a business man. I have a few business registe...I'm a business man. I have a few business registered with the state, all of which enjoy deduction of expenses before income is recognized. <BR/><BR/>The only business whose expenses are not recognized as such buy the state are my children's baby food, clothing, and raising. The business of raising babies is completely penalized by the state. <BR/><BR/>All you gay liberals who want to be married and conservatives who are defending the state occupation of marriage don't realize the foolishness you are talking.<BR/><BR/>GET CAESAR OUT OF MARRIAGE.<BR/><BR/>Sigh... <BR/><BR/>But I know I just sound like a libertarian nutjob to everyone when I say that.<BR/><BR/>But there is nothing fiscally conservative about letting Caesar into our bedrooms and into our sacraments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-38907726737074953882007-07-27T14:45:00.000-05:002007-07-27T14:45:00.000-05:00CourageMan,I would be hard-pressed to agree with a...CourageMan,<BR/><BR/>I would be hard-pressed to agree with any argument that religion is affected negatively in any way by secular policy. After all your religious views are yours, no secular policy will prevent them or change them. If I choose to believe that I was born homosexual and that civil marriage laws should equally be applied to me and my partner, then any law or constitutional amendment against that would fly in the face of my moral views. That is something I can measure.<BR/><BR/>As to your second point... <BR/><BR/>(1) I can argue that there are many gay couples that are raising children, may it be by adoption or having them naturally by aid of some artificial means... having a loving couple provide a loving and nurturing home for a child I would consider very much a benefit to society that should be recognized and supported by society and our government. Also, your argument suggests that heterosexual couples never get married with absolutely any intention of raising children, when in fact it happens all of the time. What broad secular benefit would these couples be granting society?<BR/><BR/>(2) All you have stated is what have been the societal norms; marriage is a societal construct, therefore comparing it to a natural process is irrelevant. I will agree with you that being born is natural and dying is natural... many things that we create and do in between is, well, of our own volition.<BR/><BR/>-JeffAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-27180454295953046262007-07-27T11:22:00.000-05:002007-07-27T11:22:00.000-05:00CM,I think that the anonymous commenter on this to...CM,<BR/><BR/>I think that the anonymous commenter on this topic is partially right.<BR/><BR/>In the United States, today, Catholic priests and the clergy of other denominations are acting as "agents of the state" when they perform weddings. This in that the state has empowered them to do so, i.e., approved church weddings as "legal."<BR/><BR/>It would be MUCH cleaner if we had a system like those in Civil Code (Code Napoleon) countries, e.g., France. There ALL persons seeking marriage must go to the city hall for a civil ceremony. If you want to also go to your church or temple, that's great - but the State has no say in it as it's a private religious ceremony.<BR/><BR/>Absent the clear Christian religious prohibitions to homosexuality, on a purely logical level, there does seem to be a Joseph Heller, Catch-22, quality to castigating homosexuals for being promiscuous, with promiscuity being defined as "sex outside of marriage," and at the same time denying them the means to legally wed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-39984082760848359782007-07-26T21:09:00.000-05:002007-07-26T21:09:00.000-05:00Some dolt wrote:Or that there is such a thing as n...Some dolt wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Or that there is such a thing as nature, prior to society/government.</I><BR/><BR/>That obviously should read:<BR/><BR/>Or that there is <B>NO SUCH THING</B> as nature, prior to society/government.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-71353611706451589772007-07-26T21:08:00.000-05:002007-07-26T21:08:00.000-05:00then you need to discuss the definition of "marria...<I>then you need to discuss the definition of "marriage" from a civil standpoint, not a religious one</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed. State marriage exists for state ends.<BR/><BR/>But that is not at all the same thing as saying that religious definitions cannot be consonant with secular ones. Or that, in a democracy, the people's religious character (or lack thereof) is not a relevant data point on what is appropriate public morality. Or that, in a democracy, the effects of secular policy on religion is not a thing worth considering. Or that there is such a thing as nature, prior to society/government.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>they are asking their government to recognize their marriage</I><BR/><BR/>Watch it. You've already stolen all four bases. You're presupposing that these couple are, **in point of fact** (i.e., by nature), married and the public issue is the state "recogniz[ing]" something that exists in nature.<BR/><BR/>I would argue:<BR/>(1) There is no broad secular benefit to gay couples, only their own private pleasures and interests. Thus, society has no need to subsidize the union and its privileging of the male-female union (the institution that is, not every participating couple) is rational and just.<BR/>(2) Marriage is by nature a male-female union, quite apart from religion. So there are no gay "marriages" (and more than "male pregnancies" or "four-sided triangles") and nothing prior in nature for the state to acknowledge or protect. We have all 5,000 years of recorded human civilization on this, under all religions and no religions.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-91088180767131384882007-07-26T16:21:00.000-05:002007-07-26T16:21:00.000-05:00CourageMan, if you want to make a "coherent" argum...CourageMan, if you want to make a "coherent" argument about why not allowing gay marriage is not anti-gay then you need to discuss the definition of "marriage" from a civil standpoint, not a religious one. By using the definition of marriage put forth by the Catholic church you are missing the point about why not allowing committed gay couples to marry is discriminatory. <BR/><BR/>Said another way, committed married couples want to get married to gain tax benefits to better raise children and to secure their retirement benefits for their partner. I can go on and on with numerous reasons, but I'm sure you see my point. Marriage in a Catholic church does not guarantee these things for a heterosexual couple, having them sanctioned by our government does. <BR/><BR/>Gay couples are not asking for a Priest to bless their marriages in a church, they are asking their government to recognize their marriage so as to give them access to the same opportunities and benefits that there "straight" counterparts are afforded. -JeffAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-89134747383533540422007-07-25T14:00:00.000-05:002007-07-25T14:00:00.000-05:00I believe that this was the "solution" proposed by...I believe that this was the "solution" proposed by C. S. Lewis in <B>Mere Christianity</B>--one form of marriage for Christians, indissoluble, and one for everyone else (the state's version), allowing divorce. The latter sounds pretty much like a civil union. Tolkien pointed out that this isn't a workable solution. Marriage is what it is by nature. If it isn't a man and a woman, for life, then it isn't marriage at all. The family is the basis of human society, because human beings are what they are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-75468162193938292612007-07-25T11:40:00.000-05:002007-07-25T11:40:00.000-05:00I actually agree with getting the state out of sac...I actually agree with getting the state out of sacraments completely. I would very much like to replace my marriage with a civil union because I do not recognize the state's authority to worry about what my wife and I do in the bedroom or in our church. Interestingly, New Hampshire's civil unions exclude heterosexuals so that, I imagine, they can continue to charg us higher taxes, insure our vehicles together, and who knows what else.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: they want to be all up in our business.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com