the Sanctity of marriage (1 Viewer)

[FallingPianos]

this phrase always comes up when discussing gay marriage, but what does it actually mean? which of the following things violates the "sanctity of marriage"? if gay marriage should be outlawed because it violates the sanctity of marriage, what else should be for the same reason?

 

[::Major_Baker::]

this phrase always comes up when discussing gay marriage, but what does it actually mean? which of the following things violates the "sanctity of marriage"?

The 50% divorce rate, for one.

 

[massive_attack]

The "sanctity of marriage" is a ruse. It's a plot device designed to "raise" marriage above certain things, that thing can be whatever you want.

Gay marriage, Polygamy, whatever, take your pick. Just make sure to include "sanctity of marriage" and that somehow is suppose to insulate your "arguement" against assail.

sanctity
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred :

sanctity
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.

sacred
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.


sure, this isn't a religious

 

[vexati0n]

Of course, the very term "sanctity" carries religious connotations and definitions along with it. Implying that gay marriage somehow violates the 'sanctity' of marriage is only a polite way of saying that it offends God. And they only say it politely because that way you have a better chance of convincing somebody that you're not making a religious proclamation.

The "Defense of Marriage Act" now so popularly discussed is a religious assault on freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of contractual agreement, and freedom from the moronic masses. They say it is not an amendment to specifically deny a right, because they say that right does not exist and they're just clarifying that. But ask them this question: "Why do we need this Amendment?" and they will say, "Because gay people will get married otherwise." You see, they're not clarifying a lack of right that doesn't really exist -- they are pre-emptively denying that right before it can exist.

It's a bunch of hooplah over not much at all though, considering that A) there's hardly a chance it hell it will even make it out of Congress, much less through 38 state legislatures; and B) even if it did, it will be repealed within 25 years just like Prohibition was (another embarrassing failure for the religious "right").

 

[LeftyHenry]

Well I wouldn't use the word 'sanctity' but marrying for money or marrying for money is plain wrong.

 

[Pen]

You have made excellent points, Star. The entire effort in congress is just political theatre to pacify the fundamentalist base for their true wish to ban gay unions. Clearly, there is no real threat to any marriage by a same sex union. Fundamentalist's view homosexuals as an "abomination" and their agenda is to push that belief on all others.

But a constitutional amendment? This is pure pandering on the part of the politicians pretending to support this. I say "pretending" because there is zero chance that this bit of burlesque will succeed.

Election years are so entertaining. :roll:

 

[Binary_Digit]

I've tried to make this point before but you nailed it. The sanctity of marriage belongs in church, not in the lawbooks.

 

[Jerry]

One can not use “the Sanctity of marriage” as a legal argument unless they can show how this “sanctity” serves a ‘compelling state interest’.

Myself, I argue that such ‘compelling state interests’ are 1. The welfare of the populations mental health, and 2. The survival of the state’s existence.

However, to stay on topic:
Marriage is the covenant which separates a uniquely special relationship from all others. This relationship establishes and maintains the core of the family.

When you consider other forms of relationships as being the same as the naturally uniquely special one, the naturally uniquely special one becomes less special and more common. Eventually what you end up with is all relationships being considered no more or less special than any other. With all relationships being given the same standing, you must then eliminate the idea of legal marriage in the interest of ‘equality for all’, as marriage would then be seen as fascist.

With marriage out of the picture, either in the eyes of the majority populace or having actually been legally abolished, one more societal pillar falls away, which, for it’s part, allows a societal flux to occur.

 

[Kandahar]

One can not use “the Sanctity of marriage” as a legal argument unless they can show how this “sanctity” serves a ‘compelling state interest’.

Myself, I argue that such ‘compelling state interests’ are 1. The welfare of the populations mental health, and 2. The survival of the state’s existence.

How exactly does same-sex marriage harm the populations' mental health or threaten the existence of the state?

However, to stay on topic:
Marriage is the covenant which separates a uniquely special relationship from all others. This relationship establishes and maintains the core of the family.

When you consider other forms of relationships as being the same as the naturally uniquely special one, the naturally uniquely special one becomes less special and more common. Eventually what you end up with is all relationships being considered no more or less special than any other. With all relationships being given the same standing, you must then eliminate the idea of legal marriage in the interest of ‘equality for all’, as marriage would then be seen as fascist.

This is ridicuous. Marriages are exactly as uniquely special as the people involved want them to be, regardless of their genders.

With marriage out of the picture, either in the eyes of the majority populace or having actually been legally abolished, one more societal pillar falls away, which, for it’s part, allows a societal flux to occur.

You haven't proven how this will abolish marriage in the first place, to say nothing of why it will cause this "societal flux."

 

[tecoyah]

Well I wouldn't use the word 'sanctity' but marrying for money or marrying for money is plain wrong.

Then I for one....am wrong. Dont misunderstand me....my wife and I have the best relationship I can imagine, and I am extremely happy spending my life with her and my children....but we married for the Tax codes, not for the "Sanctity"....we already had that.

I dont need a church to "Tell" me what marriage is, if only because they obviously....havent figured it out yet .

 

[Jerry]

How exactly does same-sex marriage harm the populations' mental health or threaten the existence of the state?

I am of the camp that sees homosexuality as a psychosexual disorder, with various objections to the APA's standing, and similar.

Homosexuality is not necessarily within the control of the individual (as many anti-GM folks say), but it is unhealthy. It is a disorder.

Here is a sample of my perspective.

The younger of my 2 older sisters turned to homosexuality by choice after a stint of abuse. She later befriended a councilor, and after some time came to understand why she distrusted men and sought the Mother Archetype that abandoned her in other women. A friend-of-the-family went through a similar experience with her boyfriends. So I don't buy it when people say " homosexual people are 'born that way'". I know that claim to be false. It does not apply universally, as the pro GM movement would have me believe.

Legalization of same-sex 'marriage, specifically under the deception that homosexuality is "normal, natural and healthy" and "homosexual people are born that way" (newborns + sexuality......yeah, sure :roll: ) is accepting mental illness.

If homosexual people were in general good psycological health, they would not seek a same-sex partner, thus same-sex 'marriage is the result of an unhealthy state of mind and our focus should be on corecting homosexuality, not saying that it's "normal, natural and healthy".

This is ridiculous. Marriages are exactly as uniquely special as the people involved want them to be, regardless of their genders.

That's a Natural Law argument. Go there at your own risk.

You haven't proven how this will abolish marriage in the first place, to say nothing of why it will cause this "societal flux."

It contributes to the societal flux, it does not effect it on it's own. Aside from socially unacceptable historical examples, I often reference Rome as one example of what will happen if we keep up this " spiritual malice".

 

[Jerry]

Then I for one....am wrong. Dont misunderstand me....my wife and I have the best relationship I can imagine, and I am extremely happy spending my life with her and my children....but we married for the Tax codes, not for the "Sanctity"....we already had that.

I dont need a church to "Tell" me what marriage is, if only because they obviously....havent figured it out yet .

Yup, same here.

 

[Kandahar]

I am of the camp that sees homosexuality as a psychosexual disorder, with various objections to the APA's standing, and similar.

Homosexuality is not necessarily within the control of the individual (as many anti-GM folks say), but it is unhealthy. It is a disorder.

Mental disorders generally harm the person or their friends/family. Who is harmed if a guy is attracted to another guy?

Here is a sample of my perspective.

The younger of my 2 older sisters turned to homosexuality by choice after a stint of abuse. She later befriended a councilor, and after some time came to understand why she distrusted men and sought the Mother Archetype that abandoned her in other women. A friend-of-the-family went through a similar experience with her boyfriends. So I don't buy it when people say " homosexual people are 'born that way'". I know that claim to be false. It does not apply universally, as the pro GM movement would have me believe.

Almost all male homosexuals are born that way, along with a substantial amount of female homosexuals. What's your point? Your example hardly makes YOUR statement apply universally, that they are NOT born that way...and even in the cases where they weren't born that way doesn't mean that they have a "mental disorder."

Legalization of same-sex 'marriage, specifically under the deception that homosexuality is "normal, natural and healthy" and "homosexual people are born that way" (newborns + sexuality......yeah, sure :roll: ) is accepting mental illness.

No, it's legalizing a contract between people regardless of their gender. If a heterosexual person wants to marry a person of the same sex, they should be perfectly free to do so.

If homosexual people were in general good psycological health, they would not seek a same-sex partner, thus same-sex 'marriage is the result of an unhealthy state of mind and our focus should be on corecting homosexuality, not saying that it's "normal, natural and healthy".

That is a textbook example of a fallacious circular argument if I've ever heard one.

That's a Natural Law argument. Go there at your own risk.

YOU are the one arguing that legalizing same-sex marriage somehow devalues preexisting marriages.

It contributes to the societal flux, it does not effect it on it's own. Aside from socially unacceptable historical examples, I often reference Rome as one example of what will happen if we keep up this " spiritual malice".

If you think the collapse of the Roman Empire had anything at all to do with tolerance of homosexuals, you are so far out of touch with reality that I don't see this discussion serving any purpose.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I am of the camp that sees homosexuality as a psychosexual disorder, with various objections to the APA's standing, and similar.

So you would recomend counseling to all of the animals in nature that practice homosexuality? :doh

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

Almost all male homosexuals are born that way, along with a substantial amount of female homosexuals. What's your point? Your example hardly makes YOUR statement apply universally, that they are NOT born that way...and even in the cases where they weren't born that way doesn't mean that they have a "mental disorder."

There is no definitive proof of this comment. It is based on a theory, nothing more and cannot be used as a supposed factual remark.

So you would recomend counseling to all of the animals in nature that practice homosexuality?

In the wild, homosexual behavior between animals is a dominance exhibition, and animals act as creatures in heat, with little to no self control. They cannot pose rational thought, and are not even related to this topic.

 

[tecoyah]

So you would recomend counseling to all of the animals in nature that practice homosexuality? :doh

.................and there it is.....................

the very definition of natural

I defy ANYONE....to argue this point in the context of natural homosexuality

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

.................and there it is.....................

the very definition of natural

I defy ANYONE....to argue this point in the context of natural homosexuality

Then look at the post above yours.

 

[Kandahar]

In the wild, homosexual behavior between animals is a dominance exhibition, and animals act as creatures in heat, with little to no self control. They cannot pose rational thought, and are not even related to this topic.

What does rational thought have to do with it? There's nothing more or less rational about being attracted to one gender or the other.

The point he was making is that homosexuality naturally occurs among mammals, and he is absolutely right.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

What does rational thought have to do with it? There's nothing more or less rational about being attracted to one gender or the other.

The point he was making is that homosexuality naturally occurs among mammals, and he is absolutely right.

It is rare, not common, and it is done to determine which animal is the top one, nothing more. It is specifically done as a display of dominance.

 

[Jerry]

Mental disorders generally harm the person or their friends/family. Who is harmed if a guy is attracted to another guy?

That's a fair question.
The answer is: The person and their friends and family.

The individual is damaged by not reaching normal psychological development, which I contend everyone has a right to possess. The individual encourages his same-sex partner to remain in a state of psychological unhealthiness. I surmise that any male children a female homosexual couple have run a greater risk of having some form of a psychosexual disorder, to some degree, as the work in the reference I gave showed that the majority of homosexuality in males was caused by the lack of a male role model.

My first step in the analysis for the families of these boys was to focus upon the fathers, the father substitutes, and the male models available to these boys with inadequate masculine role development. The research literature of the psychosexual development of normal children has revealed that the father is the parent whose role behaviors are most likely to generate sex appropriate behaviors in the children in a family unit (Mead & Rekers, 1979). The characteristics that have been reported to foster the establishment of normal gender identity in children include the father's nurturance and dominance. In contrast, literature on the effects of paternal deprivation indicates that the sex role learning process is adversely affected when fathers are either physically or psychologically absent from the home (Biller, 1974; Hamilton, 1977).

The impact of paternal deprivation on psychosexual development is most conspicuous in the retrospective clinical studies of homosexual and transsexual men. But direct studies of the families of gender disturbed children have been few.

Almost all male homosexuals are born that way, along with a substantial amount of female homosexuals. What's your point? Your example hardly makes YOUR statement apply universally, that they are NOT born that way...and even in the cases where they weren't born that way doesn't mean that they have a "mental disorder."

The reference I gave showed that nearly no biological causal effect could be found. Not genetic, not hormonal imbalance while in utero, and similar.

Over the past 12 years, over 100 boys have been referred to my N.I.M.H. supported Gender Research Project for evaluation and potential treatment for a gender disturbance. My research team completed comprehensive psychological evaluations of approximately 70 of these children, and we required a complete physical examination and medical history report from the child's pediatrician. In addition, a pediatric geneticist joined us to conduct a more complete medical examination for a subset of consecutive referrals to our project. According to our geneticist, baseline endocrinological studies were considered unnecessary unless abnormalities were detected in the physical examination. The following medical examination was given to the subset of research subject referrals: Medical history; physical examination, including external genitalia; chromosome analysis, including two cells karyotyped and 15 counted; and sex chromatin studies.
All 70 of the gender disturbed boys were found to be normal physically and the more completely evaluated boys were found to be normal physically, with the single exception of one boy with one undescended testicle (Rekers, Crandall, Rosen & Bentler, 1979). No evidence was found for maternal hormone treatment during pregnancy nor were there any histories of hormonal imbalance in the mothers. Our findings were consistent with the literature on adulthood gender disturbances such as transsexualism and transvestism-namely, occur in individuals without detectable or measurable abnormalities in any of the five physical variables of sex.

No, it's legalizing a contract between people regardless of their gender. If a heterosexual person wants to marry a person of the same sex, they should be perfectly free to do so.

We will have to agree to disagree on that, as we have each made up our minds.

I see marriage as much more than a contract, and the existence of a disorder is no reason to alter marriage so as to accommodate that disorder. It is the disorder which is in error, not the marital "contract", because the noted difference, what is misrepresented as "discrimination", is the disorder, not the gender.

That is a textbook example of a fallacious circular argument if I've ever heard one.

I thank you for your opinion, but I disagree.

YOU are the one arguing that legalizing same-sex marriage somehow devalues preexisting marriages.

Er, no.

One can not use “the Sanctity of marriage” as a legal argument unless they can show how this “sanctity” serves a ‘compelling state interest’.

Myself, I argue that such ‘compelling state interests’ are 1. The welfare of the populations mental health, and 2. The survival of the state’s existence.

If you think the collapse of the Roman Empire had anything at all to do with tolerance of homosexuals, you are so far out of touch with reality that I don't see this discussion serving any purpose.

Okay. See you later.

 

[Jerry]

So you would recommend counseling to all of the animals in nature that practice homosexuality? :doh

I don't really appreciate your equating homosexual people with mere animals. People are people regardless of mental condition, you would do well to remember that and show homosexual people a little respect.

To answer the nature of your question: No. Animals have no such institution of marriage, nor does the constitution apply to them (animals are not "persons"). Please refrain from throwing RedHerrings in the future.

 

[MrFungus420]

I don't really appreciate your equating homosexual people with mere animals. People are people regardless of mental condition, you would do well to remember that and show homosexual people a little respect.

Nobody was making that comparison. The point that was being made was that, since the behaviour occurs in nature, it is not unnatural.

Those that you are arguing against are saying that homosexuals deserve to be treated like heterosexuals. Who isn't showing respect, those who are in favor of treating homosexuals as people, or those who try to tell them the they are just sick?

To answer the nature of your question: No. Animals have no such institution of marriage,

Nobody has said that they are. It is a point that was brought up to counter the contention that homosexual behaviour is unnatural.

nor does the constitution apply to them (animals are not "persons").

Again, nobody has made that claim here.

Please refrain from throwing RedHerrings in the future.

You mean like claiming that your oppositions was making the claim that homosexuals are "mere animals"?

Or, bringing up the institution of marriage among animals when nobody said anything like that?

Or, bringing up the Constitution when it wasn't a part of the discussion at all?

Red herrings, one and all.

 

[tecoyah]

In the wild, homosexual behavior between animals is a dominance exhibition, and animals act as creatures in heat, with little to no self control. They cannot pose rational thought, and are not even related to this topic.

"
There is no definitive proof of this comment. It is based on a theory, nothing more and cannot be used as a supposed factual remark."

 

[Gardener]

I chose the option "wearing white pumps before memorial day". Nothing undermines the sanctity of marriage quite like trotting out the white pumps prematurely.

THis practice did cause the Roman Empire to collapse, after all.

 

[ngdawg]

The reference I gave showed that nearly no biological causal effect could be found. Not genetic, not hormonal imbalance while in utero, and similar.

In 1974 and 1979, there wasn't even DNA testing...try finding more reliable and current sources.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519
Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

“We have finally solved this paradox,” says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. “The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.”

Relative differences
Camperio-Ciani's team questioned 98 gay and 100 straight men about their closest relatives - 4600 people in total. They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.
I find it quite hypocritical that you would suggest homosexuality should be equated with a mental defect, yet reprimand someone and tell them they should treat homosexuals with respect.
Ok, that was a bit off topic, but so was what I rebutted....

I don't think any of those choices would destroy the 'sanctity' of marriage because it's value is between those getting married and what one feels constitutes 'the sanctity of marriage'. In cultures where marriage is arranged, its sanctity is held in extremely high regard; so much so that death is threatened to those that would dare fall in love and get married without prior arrangement.
I feel strongly that some of the reasons GW uses to bolster his argument against gay marriage are the reasons it SHOULD be legal.; no one should be denied their right or privilege to marry simply because of whom they chose as their mate.
Personally, I got married for a very dumb reason, one not included in the choices.:roll: