California Proposition 8 and the purpose of marriage

lilakuh · Oct 21, 2008

While I was reading up on the upcoming vote on Proposition 8 in California (titled "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.") I found these statements by the Catholic Bishops of California:

"...marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race."

"...The marriage of a man and a woman embraces not only their sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate. The ideal for the well being of children is to be born into a traditional marriage and to be raised by both a mother and a father. We recognize that there are parents who are single and we laud them for the great sacrifices they make in raising their children."

http://www.cacatholic.org/bishops-s...f-california-in-support-of-proposition-8.html

There are several things I disagree with, but one point in particular stands out. According to the Catholic Bishops, the main purpose of marriage is procreation. If that is the case, we should regularly see a whole host of other initiatives on the ballot, such as "Eliminates Right of Infertile Couples to Marry.", or "Eliminates Right of Old Couples to Marry." Yet (fortunately) that isn't the case, but I was wondering why?

The other weird statement in the article above is that single parents are "lauded for their efforts", which is strange because a single parent must either have had the child out of wedlock, or must have been divorced. Both of these usually don't go over with the church that well.

If we follow the Bishops' argument, given the divorce rate in this country a constitutional amendment such as "Eliminates Right of Couples to Divorce." would protect marriage far more than banning gay marriage ever could. Why don't we see any of that?

trunks2k · Oct 21, 2008

The purpose of the amendment aside, I really don't like the idea of a constitutional amendment being made on a simple plurality.

Matthewj1985 · Oct 21, 2008

That is coming from a Catholic Bishop though, you need to take it with a grain of salt. After all, these are the people who use "holy family planning" and always wonder why God wants them to have 8 kids.

lilakuh · Oct 21, 2008

trunks2k said:
The purpose of the amendment aside, I really don't like the idea of a constitutional amendment being made on a simple plurality.

Just to clarify, I don't think either of these real or hypothetical amendments is a good idea.

Polycarp_fan · Oct 21, 2008

lilakuh said:
While I was reading up on the upcoming vote on Proposition 8 in California (titled "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.") I found these statements by the Catholic Bishops of California:

lilakuh said:
"...marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race."

"...The marriage of a man and a woman embraces not only their sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate. The ideal for the well being of children is to be born into a traditional marriage and to be raised by both a mother and a father. We recognize that there are parents who are single and we laud them for the great sacrifices they make in raising their children."

http://www.cacatholic.org/bishops-statements/a-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-california-in-support-of-proposition-8.html

There are several things I disagree with, but one point in particular stands out. According to the Catholic Bishops, the main purpose of marriage is procreation. If that is the case, we should regularly see a whole host of other initiatives on the ballot, such as "Eliminates Right of Infertile Couples to Marry.", or "Eliminates Right of Old Couples to Marry." Yet (fortunately) that isn't the case, but I was wondering why?

The other weird statement in the article above is that single parents are "lauded for their efforts", which is strange because a single parent must either have had the child out of wedlock, or must have been divorced. Both of these usually don't go over with the church that well.

If we follow the Bishops' argument, given the divorce rate in this country a constitutional amendment such as "Eliminates Right of Couples to Divorce." would protect marriage far more than banning gay marriage ever could. Why don't we see any of that?

This is not the real reason so many parents are up in arms about the Gay Agenda. With same-gender marriage comes the chaos of attacking every other normal situation between men and women, boys and girls. Already Mother's Day and Father's Day are under assault by the very social reengineering goals of the Left. How bigoted to have a special day set aside to celebrate some old, out-dated, homophobic thing called Mother's Day. Gay aims and goals stand in stark opposition to all of the other normal, acceptable and common aspects of the "traditional family."

There is more to same-gender marriage than just two guys or two women getting hitched. It is an attack on and intolerance of the majority of common people to have the rights to expect normality to be valued.

The Slippery Slope Syndrome.

lilakuh · Oct 21, 2008

double post.

lilakuh · Oct 21, 2008

Polycarp_fan said:
With same-gender marriage comes the chaos of attacking every other normal situation between men and women

Besides what you outline below, what exactly do you think is under attack?

Polycarp_fan said:
Already Mother's Day and Father's Day are under assault by the very social reengineering goals of the Left.

I'm sure you can back up your claim? Please don't do quote mining from a whacko fringe web site. I'm really curious where exactly you see the "Left" attacking father's day.

But let's stay on topic. Do you agree with the Catholic bishop's position?

Polycarp_fan said:
It is an attack on and intolerance of the majority of common people to have the rights to expect normality to be valued

How exactly is gay marriage "intolerance...of common people"? Last time I checked, it's the anti-gay marriage proponents who are trying to tell others how to live their life. I don't see gays running around forcing you to marry someone of your own gender.

Plus, there is no "right to expect normality". Where did you get that from? There is, however, a constitutional right for everyone to be treated the same under the law.

TeddyKGB · Oct 21, 2008

Polycarp_fan said:
This is not the real reason so many parents are up in arms about the Gay Agenda. With same-gender marriage comes the chaos of attacking every other normal situation between men and women, boys and girls. Already Mother's Day and Father's Day are under assault by the very social reengineering goals of the Left. How bigoted to have a special day set aside to celebrate some old, out-dated, homophobic thing called Mother's Day. Gay aims and goals stand in stark opposition to all of the other normal, acceptable and common aspects of the "traditional family."

There is more to same-gender marriage than just two guys or two women getting hitched. It is an attack on and intolerance of the majority of common people to have the rights to expect normality to be valued.

The Slippery Slope Syndrome.

In absolutely no way does the argument from "our culture is under attack" speak to matters of constitutionality.

In fairness, it hasn't been about constitutionality with the anti-gay-marriage faction from the get-go. Your arguments are all either transparent attempts to establish some enigmatic heterosexual facade for the nation (whereupon you stand up in the saddle of your high horse and preach against the homosexual promiscuity that you helped create) or quaint homilies to states' rights (that are somehow supposed to support denial of certain contracts between sub-federal entities).

I would say "nice try," except it isn't.

selfinflikted · Oct 21, 2008

TeddyKGB said:
In absolutely no way does the argument from "our culture is under attack" speak to matters of constitutionality.

In fairness, it hasn't been about constitutionality with the anti-gay-marriage faction from the get-go. Your arguments are all either transparent attempts to establish some enigmatic heterosexual facade for the nation (whereupon you stand up in the saddle of your high horse and preach against the homosexual promiscuity that you helped create) or quaint homilies to states' rights (that are somehow supposed to support denial of certain contracts between sub-federal entities).

I would say "nice try," except it isn't.

QFT

keith99 · Oct 21, 2008

lilakuh said:
I'm sure you can back up your claim? Please don't do quote mining from a whacko fringe web site. I'm really curious where exactly you see the "Left" attacking father's day.

I decided to do a little searching. I'm no tgoing back and do it again. I searched Mother's day, not father's day. Actually the search was <gay mother's day>

Of course there were many hits, the largest single class of hits was how gays were celebrating the day. And some strange ones, gay has 2 meanings and once you are a couple of pages in having those 3 words on a page gets all kinds of things.

BUT I did get one hit on topic, more or less.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5244/is_200105/ai_n19700542

An elite private Jewish school in New York City has outraged some parents by its decision to do away with Mother's Day and Father's Day activities as a way to protect the feelings of children raised by same-sex couples, single parents or grandparents. Letters were sent to parents on Friday explaining the Rodeph Sholom Day School's ban on holidays that traditionally celebrate moms and dads, according to the New York Post, which first reported the story

The interesting thing is the headline made it sound like the school gave into gay preasure and there is no indication of that.

I found a second article that indicates the reason may have been even drier. That there was no 'educational value'. To that I say yuch, kids should have fun some of the time.

http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/newsnotes/bl_todo0006.htm

keith99 · Oct 21, 2008

Thought I'd add a followup.

You can find a lot more by searching on the schools name.

Polycarp_fan hit it right by picking Liberal rahter than gay. The roots seem to be more the uberliberal/PC ideas of the school than any gay adgenda.

I found 2 sites that claimed in their articles that this was due to gay preasure. None that gave anything close to a source or verifyable information, all hearsay.

Then the one really strange thing. The no mother's or father's day policy is grade 4 and up! If this is in some way to protect the fragile feelings of children who do not have a mother or father wouldn't it make sense to protect those least able to understand and deal with this, the youngest children?

BTW also founf one op ed piece by a guy named Jonah who attended the school years ago and points out that the roots go way back. (He would draw a whale on his lunchbag and was preasured to stop because other children did not all have names that worked for anything similar).

Bombila · Oct 21, 2008

Keith, I worked with pre-schoolers for 25 years. The whole mothers'/fathers' day thing was always a problem, at least back as far as the seventies. We had kids with single parents, kids whose father or mother were in the navy and away for months at a time, kids of immigrants from Viet Nam and other places whose father or mother had been killed. By virtue of it being a daycare specifically for working parents, around seventy percent of our kids had just one parent.

We tried to balance things out by encouraging individual kids who wanted to participate and making sure we had parent type projects they could do, but not making it a group effort - no "Everybody make a card for Mother's Day!".

It isn't 'liberal' or 'politically correct', IMO, to try to make something that trivial a little easier on the feelings of little kids.

(The Jonah thing sounds right overboard, though.)

jcook922 · Oct 21, 2008

Wow, that's really screwed up. Since when did private schools cave to pressures like that? Last I checked upper class jewish kids weren't a high percentage of the gay population.

Robbie_James_Francis · Oct 21, 2008

I agree with earlier posts that it's not about LGBT campaigns, but generalised progressive campaigns.

There are some absurd initiatives in certain schools and other public services, but given how many we have they don't really tell us much about what's really going on in general.

There's no reason to abolish Mother/Father's Day events in schools, it just sometimes has to be done more pupil-specifically and sensitively. Being 5 or so and being forced every year to be in classes all about making cards for your mum when you're mum has just died and you don't even understand what's happened isn't great...

Holy Roller · Oct 21, 2008

lilakuh said:
While I was reading up on the upcoming vote on Proposition 8 in California (titled "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.") I found these statements by the Catholic Bishops of California:

"...marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race."

"...The marriage of a man and a woman embraces not only their sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate. The ideal for the well being of children is to be born into a traditional marriage and to be raised by both a mother and a father. We recognize that there are parents who are single and we laud them for the great sacrifices they make in raising their children."

http://www.cacatholic.org/bishops-s...f-california-in-support-of-proposition-8.html

There are several things I disagree with, but one point in particular stands out. According to the Catholic Bishops, the main purpose of marriage is procreation. If that is the case, we should regularly see a whole host of other initiatives on the ballot, such as "Eliminates Right of Infertile Couples to Marry.", or "Eliminates Right of Old Couples to Marry." Yet (fortunately) that isn't the case, but I was wondering why?

The other weird statement in the article above is that single parents are "lauded for their efforts", which is strange because a single parent must either have had the child out of wedlock, or must have been divorced. Both of these usually don't go over with the church that well.

If we follow the Bishops' argument, given the divorce rate in this country a constitutional amendment such as "Eliminates Right of Couples to Divorce." would protect marriage far more than banning gay marriage ever could. Why don't we see any of that?

I have given this topic alot of thought, so pay attention. Please?
Marriage as the Bishops have said is intended for the raising of a family ("procreation"). This is the intended, explicit purpose behind any marriage.
Q: "Holy Roller, so what about the couple that has no intention on having children? Where are you guys then? Well?"
A: Again, marriage serves the purpose of uniting a man and a woman so that they may have a family. If a couple does not want a family now, they may change their minds later. Thus the rationale remains a valid one. Insolong as that potential to raise a family exists, marriage should be available.
Q: "But what about the people who go to great lengths to guarantee they don't want to have children, like the husband has a vasectomy or something?"
A: Their reasons for getting married are the wrong reasons (money, etc.). But whatever their reasons may be, they may still get married provided they tell the Church or Clerk they intend on having a family. In other words, they lie.
Q: But what about the infertile couple?
A: There are adoption agencies.
Q: But what about the elderly couple?
A: Remember, the purpose of marriage is to start a family. Procreation is the usual route, but adoption may take the place of procreation. Insolong as the possibility exists for the couple to raise children, they should be allowed to marry. Thus, age is not a factor.
Q: But H/R, you are going backwards here. I mean, the gay couple have the potential to raise a family, so by your definitions, they should be allowed to get married, right?
A: No. The potential does not exist, because procreation cannot be done with just one sex-organ. Just because the married couple adopts, does not mean the potential goes away; it just means they are not exercising that potential at that moment. Furthermore, raising children goes beyond the pregnancy. There are babies that need nursing, and a gay man can't do this (using a bottle doesn't count, because that removes the purpose of breasts). For the gay couple, this potential may never be exercised, since the laws of nature forbids it.

TeddyKGB · Oct 21, 2008

Holy Roller said:
I have given this topic alot of thought, so pay attention. Please?
Marriage as the Bishops have said is intended for the raising of a family ("procreation"). This is the intended, explicit purpose behind any marriage.
Q: "Holy Roller, so what about the couple that has no intention on having children? Where are you guys then? Well?"
A: Again, marriage serves the purpose of uniting a man and a woman so that they may have a family. If a couple does not want a family now, they may change their minds later. Thus the rationale remains a valid one. Insolong as that potential to raise a family exists, marriage should be available.
Q: "But what about the people who go to great lengths to guarantee they don't want to have children, like the husband has a vasectomy or something?"
A: Their reasons for getting married are the wrong reasons (money, etc.). But whatever their reasons may be, they may still get married provided they tell the Church or Clerk they intend on having a family. In other words, they lie.
Q: But what about the infertile couple?
A: There are adoption agencies.
Q: But what about the elderly couple?
A: Remember, the purpose of marriage is to start a family. Procreation is the usual route, but adoption may take the place of procreation. Insolong as the possibility exists for the couple to raise children, they should be allowed to marry. Thus, age is not a factor.
Q: But H/R, you are going backwards here. I mean, the gay couple have the potential to raise a family, so by your definitions, they should be allowed to get married, right?
A: No. The potential does not exist, because procreation cannot be done with just one sex-organ. Just because the married couple adopts, does not mean the potential goes away; it just means they are not exercising that potential at that moment. Furthermore, raising children goes beyond the pregnancy. There are babies that need nursing, and a gay man can't do this (using a bottle doesn't count, because that removes the purpose of breasts). For the gay couple, this potential may never be exercised, since the laws of nature forbids it.

Testing out new material for your stand-up, are you?

Zeo · Oct 21, 2008

Holy Roller said:
Q: But what about the infertile couple?
A: There are adoption agencies.
Q: But what about the elderly couple?
A: Remember, the purpose of marriage is to start a family. Procreation is the usual route, but adoption may take the place of procreation. Insolong as the possibility exists for the couple to raise children, they should be allowed to marry. Thus, age is not a factor.

Let me see if I get the main points of this correct:

Even if a couple biologically cannot have children (let's say the woman had to have her uterus removed at the age of twelve due to cancer, or the man was born without the ability to produce sperm), they are still a sanctioned couple as long as they can have a family through adoption? (Surely you wouldn't suggest that folks who KNOW they can't have children because of a biological issue are marrying for the "wrong" reasons. Just because one does not have a uterus or cannot produce sperm does not mean one cannot love.)

If this bit is true, how on Earth does this point follow:

Holy Roller said:
Q: But H/R, you are going backwards here. I mean, the gay couple have the potential to raise a family, so by your definitions, they should be allowed to get married, right?
A: No. The potential does not exist, because procreation cannot be done with just one sex-organ. Just because the married couple adopts, does not mean the potential goes away; it just means they are not exercising that potential at that moment. Furthermore, raising children goes beyond the pregnancy. There are babies that need nursing, and a gay man can't do this (using a bottle doesn't count, because that removes the purpose of breasts). For the gay couple, this potential may never be exercised, since the laws of nature forbids it.

I think you're operating under the assumption that heterosexuals who don't have their own children are simply choosing not to but are still able to. That, or they have a very low probability of producing their own children, but the potential still exists. Your argument fails to hold up to heterosexual couples who are completely infertile, however. And in order for your argument to make sense (heterosexual couples can adopt and still be a family), you'd also have to conclude that gay couples can adopt and still be a family, given that they are in the same biological position (unable to reproduce on their own together). That, or you'd have to accept the claim that a person who is truly medically infertile does not have the right to marry, and that anyone who marries knowing this would be doing so (in your words) for the "wrong reasons," such as money.

In other words, whatever your reason for disagreeing with the "homosexual lifestyle" or the rights of same sex marriage, the argument as you've presented it really falls flat. I think what you're claiming needs some more clarification. Are you saying that because the "natural" way of conception is between a man and a woman, we should honor that tradition even if the individual couple in question cannot reproduce? Are you suggesting that there could be medical miracles in the case of a person who by all counts cannot reproduce? (That might be true, but it could also be true for gay couples just as it could be for straight couples.) Maybe I'm not understanding this argument, but I hear it a lot in defense of traditional marriage and really want to understand how it makes sense according to the premises it sets up.

Maren · Oct 21, 2008

I'm reminded again of the law proposed in Washington state that marriage would require children. It would allow couples to marry but if there were no children after three years then the marriage would be dissolved. Those of you who claim that procreation is the purpose of marriage would have no problem with this law, right? And if you would have problems with it, why?

WatersMoon110 · Oct 21, 2008

Maren said:
I'm reminded again of the law proposed in Washington state that marriage would require children. It would allow couples to marry but if there were no children after three years then the marriage would be dissolved. Those of you who claim that procreation is the purpose of marriage would have no problem with this law, right? And if you would have problems with it, why?

We (my husband and I) would probably fail that requirement. We're pretty committed to waiting to have children until we can actually afford them. We're 1 1/2 years into the marriage, and are not going to be able to afford a kid for another 2 years, at least.

mercutio1562 · Oct 21, 2008

interesting

California Proposition 8 and the purpose of marriage

Junior Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Under Deck

sola dosis facit venenum

sola dosis facit venenum

Veteran

Defender of Liberty, against the Left or Right.

May all beings have happiness and its causes

Well-Known Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Regular Member

Veteran

To See with Eyes Unclouded by Hate

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency