Gay Marriage Signs You Won’t See

When marriage goes on trial at the Supreme Court this year during Holy Week, expect to see protesters sharing their opinions on placards outside.

But don’t expect to see signs like those below.

My inspiration in creating them is a conference years ago where Rick Santorum was speaking. Homosexual activists had gathered outside to protest against the event, silently walking in a circle with signs that suggested Rick Santorum should not speak.

I thought they needed a message to rally around, so I jumped in line (much to the chagrin of my embarrassed daughter) and, pumping my fist in the air, chanted “No free speech for Santorum! Silence Rick Santorum!” A couple of them looked at me angrily … a few studiously ignored me, but I think a couple of them got my drift and thought it was kind of cool.

So in that spirit, I offer Gay Marriage Signs You Won’t See.

I know that gay marriage supporters don’t like to talk a lot about what marriage is. But they essentially want to change its definition from “society’s help for child-bearing and child-rearing couples” to “a note from the government saying ‘Thanks for letting us know you’re in love!'” I wish they would just come out and say it:

Gay Marriage Signs You Won't See

Or, in that spirit, maybe a sign showing a more complete accounting of the definitional change they are looking for would be helpful:

Gay Marriage Signs You Won't See

Of course, the way the argument is being framed, you have to either say “Potential parents’ struggles, needs and value to society are unextraordinary” or you are a bigot. The problem is, that’s insane, counter-intuitive and opposed not just to millennia of human wisdom but also counter to leading lights of our time. Well, they might as well say it:

Gay Marriage Signs You Won't See

Or, to fit the new Hollywood Buddhist craze, how about:

Gay Marriage Signs You Won't See

Or, heck, why not stay American? Why not make the point this way?

Gay Marriage Signs You Won't See

One last one then I’ll be done. Those “Coexist” bumper stickers are lovely, I think, as far as they go. I definitely believe that we should coexist with people who believe differently from the way we do!

Supporters of homosexual marriage aren’t for the whole “Coexist” thing. So why don’t they say so?

Gay Marriage Signs You Won't See



104 thoughts on “Gay Marriage Signs You Won’t See

  1. mominvermont says:


    If You Agree With Gender Integration for All Couples, You Are a Bigot

    1. SearchCz says:

      I agree with gender integration … but it needn’t be forced or imposed on others through marriage.

  2. angelccorr says:

    History shows (Ancient Rome) by writers like Cutullus and Martial that with full social sanction of homoerotic activity, homosexual men can expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. The next generation of boys will grow up believing they can have their choice of men or women. With its acceptance in Ancient Rome, it was odd that an occasional man would only want to be with a woman.

    My point here is that the greatest losers from the legalization of Gay marriage, according to historical precedent suggests that tomorrow’s women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family. Religion aside, there is a utilitarian argument that a homoerotic bond is opposed for the sake of tomorrow’s women, and is well-proven by history, Ancient man was no different than modern man in intellect, emotion, and physiology.

    1. John Resch says:

      Oh please. Just because gay marriage is legal in some states already does not make more men become gay. You can’t BECOME gay and you know it so stop with this nonsense.

    2. Paulspr says:

      You forgot that lesbians will get married too. Cancels things out.

    3. Marvin Derks says:

      Are you serious?

  3. Patrick says:

    Saying that the state’s interest in marriage is that it “provides society with the next generation,” is just inaccurate. Please, I beg of you, read our laws. They will show you that you are myopic.

    I get thousands of tangible benefits the day I marry my wife and carry those throughout the life of our marriage and we might never have kids. Do you think that’s an error on the part of the state? A typo? No, the truth is that my marriage to my wife has great value to us and to the state, regardless of procreation. We live in a fine country that promotes our marriage qua marriage. Why are you trying to redice my marriage to the potential that we might reproduce? She is my wife, my love, my life, my partner, my helpmate, my conscience, my best friend, my better half, my soul. My wife is more than a mere a vessel for your next generation.

    In addion to the rights and obligations that marriage brings there are SEPARATE rights and obligations that parents have towards their kids regardless of marital state. Widowed fatehrs and single mothers have the same rights and obligations towards kids as their married friends.

    So…. these are 2 separate institutions, and the law treats them separately. Read the laws and you will be forced to agree with me. It’s a fact. Separate institutions. Do they go well together? Absolutely! Will permitting gay marriage change that? No!
    Gay marriage will merely take a great and succesful civil institution and expand the number of citizens who have access to it.

    1. abadilla says:

      Patrick, no one is taking issue with the type of marriage you have chosen for you and your wife. Now, “Christian” marriage is a separate issue, it must be fruitful since that is one of the ends of marriage to begin with.
      Now, what happens to couples who are married in the Church and are unable to have children? The Church celebrates those marriages too because they are based on love, a reciprocal love, and it isn’t that the couple WILL not have children, they just CAN’T have them because of infertility issues.
      Also, it is important to remember that once the children are born, the Church welcomes them just the same and it does not make judgments as to whether those children came from in-vitro or from the love that mom and dad demostrated to each other in the marriage bed, or are the product of a man expressing his drunkedness rather than love.

      1. SearchCz says:

        I’m married, but my spouse and I cannot have children. (Its not that we WILL not, we just CANT). Our marriage is based on love, a reciprocal love. But my church sure doesn’t celebrate it. Explain.

        1. abadilla says:

          And I have explained over and over again that the Church does not reject a couple who are married for not having children when the issue is infertilty rather than being fertile and choosing NOT to have children. The Church is utterly clear in making the distinction between those who can not have children through no fault of their own, and those who refuse to have children.
          Also, the Church has to fight against most people who believe in the Malthusian theory and can’t understand why the Church insists on married Catholic couples having children.

          1. SearchCz says:

            Yet, church-y folk lean on procreation as an argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry. If having kids is not necessary in order for a couple to be considered married, quit telling folks that they are excluded BECAUSE OF their union’s inability to produce children!

          2. abadilla says:

            In another post, I already explained the position of the Church on gay marriage, if we can call it that.
            It isn’t just the inability to have children the Church frowns upon, but two males or two females rearing children, because the Church believes that the best we can do for a child is to rear that child with a male and a female role model. Now, let us say two heterosexual people who live together want to adopt a child. Does the Church frown upon that? Yes, again, because it believes the child should have a male and a female role model and psychiatrists and psychologists agree that is the best situation for a child to grow into a healthy adult.
            Having said that, the Church will never see the children of homosexual couples as “bad” children or the like, because EVERY child is innocent of the circumstances in which he or she was conceived.

          3. SearchCz says:

            … but BCAUSE we are both men, and therefore unable to conceive, we are not allowed to marry. Explain?

          4. abadilla says:

            I’m not a diplomat or someone who could put it charitably, so, forgive me if I seem harsh.
            It isn’t just that gays can’t procreate, that being one of the ends of marriage, but a homosexual union (sexual) is looked upon by the Church as sinful. Why? the Christian vision of marriage is that a man and a woman will become one flesh and that they will be fruitful and multiply.
            I am sure that in ancient Rome and in the Greco Roman world in general homosexuality was popular and sexual relations between men and men and women and women was not frowned upon. Christianty came into the picture and it condemned it from the word “go.”
            For us to change the teaching would mean to ignore the entire vision of marriage as understood by Tradition, the Scriptures and the Magisterium, and the Church won’t do that.
            Now, will the Church have to recognized that a certain percentage of the population is gay and would like to get married in the Church? Yes, but the moral dilemma will still be there because it can never accept homosexual acts as being less than sinful.
            Before you have a cow with the Catholic Church, consider that I know of no Christian church that teaches homosexual acts are O.K.
            Having said that, I have a gay brother I love him very much and he and and I have argued about this issue heatedly, but he does not doubt my love for him nor does he doubt that the teaching of the Church will never change on this matter.
            Just as we Catholics must acknowldege there are gay folks out there, you must also recognize the boundaries the Church has to work with you and others.
            I go to Mass in West Hollywood, a gay community, and I see gay folks at Mass all the time. Are they keeping the teaching of the Church in their lives or not? I don’t know, only they and God knows.

          5. SearchCz says:

            Abadilla, there are plenty of Christian churches that bless same-se unions. And in jurisdictions where same-sex couples are permitted to marry, there are Christian churches performing those marriages. And there are many, many more that will not solemnize a same-sex union – which is a fine example of people freely exercising their religious beliefs.

            I have no problem with The Church limiting marriage to unions of one man and one woman. The problem comes with the insistence that this belief be imposed on every other citizen. Insisting that one’s religious beliefs be enshrined in law and enforced on everybody else is what the Taliban does! We don’t need a Roman Catholic version of Sharia law here in the states.

            By all means, practice and profess your religious beliefs! But don’t try to gain adherents through coercion & force.

        2. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

          J.M.J. You don’t say what Church you belong to, but if you are a Catholic, “your” Church has never said that there is anything wrong with your marriage. In what did your marriage preparation consist?

    2. Marvin Derks says:

      Great poetic rational definition of marriage. And so close to Valentine’s Day. You’ve taken all the bogus definitions out of the equation and clearly stated the essence of any true relationship, be it male and female or male and male or female and female. As a side note, I don’t believe that your wife is your conscience. I believe that every time you look at her, you feel your own conscience very deeply. Thank-you, Patrick, for sharing your words with us. I found them to be very uplifting.

    3. Southern Catholic says:

      Explain why your marriage has a great value to the state.

      1. Patrick says:

        Sure, I’ll give you ONE example, and then you can go do your own research. By marrying my wife I am responsible for her debts – thus she is less likely to be a burden on the state. Oh, here’s another: The very fact of our marriage makes her more likely to live a mentally, emotionall and physically healthy life – thereby being less of a burden on the state’s hospitals and medical resources. Wait, one more: The tax benefits we enjoy as a married couple allowed her to save more money and reinvest it in our community by opening a bakery. She now employs your daughter. Shall I go on?

        1. Southern Catholic says:

          Those might be good reasons for you to be married, but not to the state, in fact your reasons aren’t necessarily true for all married couples.

          I can tell that you are trying to equate marriage as having mushy feelings for one another, if that were the case then the state has no business regulating marriage at all, and that decision should be left to the religious institutions to marry people. The bottom line is that the tax code is written so that it gives incentives for couples to
          start families and bear children. If there is no children, then there
          is no state in the future. So the one benefit for the state from marriage is future children for the state to govern and of course a new future tax source.

          1. Patrick says:

            Then how do you explain all the tax benefits and obligations of marriage that my wife and I get and will get our whole lives with no children, and my neighbor, a single mother gets all the tax benefits and public policy benefits and obligations of a parent, with no husband? Hmmm? If you were right, my tax benefits would kick in not at marriage, but at the birth of a child. Or his conception. You get an F.

          2. SearchCz says:

            You are mistaken, Southern. The state benefits greatly from private citizens taking responsibility for one another … and for any children that may become part of their household. It reduced the burden on the public to have these obligations handled privately. And there are countless other benefits of marriage afforded to the community in general, including lower crime rates, better public health, and more community involvement (from married folk). Certainly the state has an interest in all of those thing too !

  4. Brian Wise says:

    Luke 14:26—–“Anyone who Does Not Hate his father, or mother, or sister, or brother, and, yes, even himself, cannot be my follower.” I think Jesus “redefined” not just Marriage, but Family, too. When someone says, “I HATE my mother!!”, we should say, “Good! You’ve made Jesus very happy!”

    1. abadilla says:

      Brian, as much as I would like to agree with your, your exegesis is faulty. The passage refers to people loving more family than God, and God always comes first, but it does not “literally” mean to hate mother and father. That would contradict the Commandment, “Honor your father and your mother!”

    2. Marvin Derks says:

      Jesus knew that the only way to experience love was to first experience hate. In that moment, we begin to get in touch with the essence of love that’s in us at birth. We can’t recognize the true nature of ourselves until we experience the opposite of ourselves. In order to know how magnificent we are at birth, we have to experience the opposite of that. That’s the nature of being human. Thanks Brian, for that remember, direct from Jesus.

      1. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

        J.M.J. It is possible to experience love first before experiencing hate. In fact, that was the experience of each of us when we were created. Before we knew anything about hate, God loved us into existence.

        1. Marvin Derks says:

          There’s no experience of God’s love in your example. No cognitive recognition of it and therefore no experience of it. One can have the experience of God as you stated only when we have a thought process that has achieved some sort of cognition. At birth, even our conscience is not yet fully formed and therefore a new born doesn’t feel bad for doing a bad act. In fact, a new born doesn’t have any concept of morality. Morality is learned through life experiences and our conscience is our guide.

  5. Except, Barbera, a secular society defining marriage as between a man and a woman has zero religious undertones…the will of the people or in this case, judicial jurisprudence is what propels such a definition.

    1. Will of the people is irrelevant in a Constitutional Republic. We do not live in a direct democracy, we live under a Constitution that includes things like the 14th Amendment.

      1. Marvin Derks says:

        Bravo once again. It’s great to have you in these discussions. You’re a refreshing, rational addition with a great sense of humor. Thanks!

      2. Tom Hoopes says:

        And don’t forget the first, guaranteeing the “free exercise of religion.”

        1. Frantastic1 says:

          Banning gay people from marriage doesn’t really scream freedom of anything, least of all religion.

          1. Tom Hoopes says:

            Religious people will be punished if they refuse to participate in the ceremonies, etc. Martin Luther King would find another freedom taken from him!

          2. Frantastic1 says:

            Banning someone from having legal protections for their family in order to protect your freedom to discriminate against them is NOT. A Christian thing to do.

            Our Catholic Church will always set the rules about who can and can not marry within our church. That is a right that is also guaranteed under our constitution. I think you know this. Actually, I know that you know this.

          3. Tom Hoopes says:

            1. Good point … they need legal protections. But does that mean marriage?

            2. By your logic the laws can’t “protect our freedom to discriminate” against polygamists, against incestual relationships, against lifelong roomates/housemates who don’t happen to be romantically involved, against cohabitation arrangments, etc. (in fact, by the gay marriage law logic we are already seeing each of those demanding the same rights).

            3. Marriage isn’t a Catholic thing. It’s something which every major religion, every society and every government has always agreed. It was a society’s protection for man-woman relationships into which children naturally come.

          4. Frantastic1 says:

            Have you ever fought for legal protections for gay people? Have you given them an alternative to marriage? You have a bully pulpit here, can you point me to your article where you helped gay people achieve legal protections for their families?

            You are right about #3. Marriage is not a catholic thing. There are many religions that openly embrace gay couples and happily celebrate their weddings. Why should the law invalidate the marriages those people’s values?

      3. Joe M says:

        Barbara. In what alternate universe does living under a constitution that begins with “We the people” mean that the will of the people is irrelevant?

        1. Frantastic1 says:

          The people have spoken. When they wrote and ratified our constitution. You may remember that part where they said ALL CITIZENS should be treated equally by ALL THE LAWS OF OUR NATION. There isn’t an exemption to treat gay people differently, and there certainly isn’t an exception that says equal treatment doesn’t apply regarding marriage laws.

          1. Joe M says:

            By your interpretation, laws that provide subsidies to farmers are in conflict with the constitution because they treat non-farmers differently.

          2. SearchCz says:

            No, Joe. Your analogy is inapt. If you want to make it about farm subsidies, its more like this:

            Government institutes a farm subsidy.

            Farmer X and Farmer Y apply for the subsidy. Farmer X gets it, but Farmer Y is denied. Because, imagine, the government doesn’t recognize plowing, planting, tending and harvesting by left-handed people as farming.

            Farmer X and Y are completing the essentials of farming, but in different ways. There’s no way it would be fair, right, reasonable or legal to subsidize one and deny the other.

          3. Joe M says:

            I wasn’t making an analogy. I was pointing out that our laws already do not treat people equally, depending on what they do. To go even closer to the issue, your interpretation suggests that people who choose never to marry are experiencing an injustice because people who choose to marry are treated differently.

            Your assertion that it is not fair to define marriage as being between a man and a woman is your opinion. Just like there are people who think that farming subsidies are unfair. Neither argument stands on the basis that it’s a unique example of the law treating people unequally. They are opinions.

          4. SearchCz says:


            You suggest that an objection to the status-quo of discriminatory marriage law would be like complaining about non-farmers not getting farm subsidies. (At this point, you might go ahead and look up “analogy”)

            Farm subsidies are only for farmers, right? Just like the benefits of marriage are just for people who marry.

            But here’s the problem: the status-quo tells some people that they may not marry, and that the thing they do that is substantially similar to marriage cannot be recognized, codified, or legally protected as such. This is not a case of people choosing not to marry ( or people choosing not to farm ) then complaining that they do not get the benefits that would have come from that activity they opted out of.

            Not all farmers are the same. Not all go about their farming in the same way. But those differences do not automatically disqualify one from receiving a subsidy, because they are not relevant to whether or not we consider the activity to be “farming”.

            Same with couples – not all are the same. Some get together for the purpose of having and raising children, while others join with no intention of ever having kids. Those differences do not automatically disqualify a couple from marrying, because they are not relevant to our consideration of that couple and their commitment.

            So when we talk about marriage equality, it is inapt to suggest that the difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is as clear and distinct as the difference between a farmer and a non-farmer.

    2. Paulspr says:

      A secular society hasn’t done that. A religious society has.

      1. Joe M says:

        You applaud that society is religious, right?

  6. How about this one: “Hey Supreme Court! You’d better insert religious law into civil society or the Pope is going to be really mad at you”.

    1. John Powers says:

      The Pope is also deadset against robbery, as it violates the 8th Commandment. Is that a good example of how to “insert religious law into civil society”?

      1. Marvin Derks says:

        That reminds me of the belief by some that, without the 10 Commandments, we’d all be wild animals. That belief assumes, I guess, that we are all born wild animals and therefore we must create all kinds of rules and laws to protect ourselves from each other. Seems to be a rather negative view of the most magnificent creatures on our planet; us.

        1. tamsin says:

          You and Rousseau should spend time together. I think you’d get along famously.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            I suspect you’re right.

        2. abadilla says:

          No, most people won’t be like wild animals because they don’t believe in the Decalogue, but they will have to believe in what “fallible” man says it’s right and wrong!

        3. angelccorr says:

          Yes, society seems to be experimenting with the humanist view, as it does from time to time, but eventually realizes that humanism invites chaos, because underlying the idea that we don’t need moral guidance, comes another idea that we can do anything. Unfortunately, some of those magnificent creatures you refer do not behave magnificently afterall. Even with moral law intact, there are those that practice the art of not believing anything is good or BAD. I am sure you can see where that leads, as it has so many times is history.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            The Hitlers of the world do not exist because of a lack of rules. And yes, there are some very bad people in the world. There are also billions of people in the world doing the best they can and being the best they can.

          2. Joe M says:

            So, your morality is based on consensus?

        4. John Powers says:

          Could post this paragraph in an Illogic 101 Class, but too remedial. Perhaps Illogic 99.

        5. Joe M says:

          What does this have to do with John Powers point that laws being in agreement with religious beliefs does not make them “religious law”?

        6. Please note how un-parented young males behave in inner city Chicago. Magnificent? Or feral? They’re not bounded by all those “rules and laws” you disdain.
          Have you ever raised children? You’ll find it a long struggle against the inner barbarian. Humans aren’t cats that raise ourselves and let instinct guide us. As parents we are the rule-makers and the boundary-creators, hopefully guided by God and the wisdom others have painfully garnered. You might even call that stuff “rules and laws”.

    2. Tom Hoopes says:

      The Pope? No … the point is that every major religion sees that
      society should help potential parents. Barbera, why do you believe that struggling parents, providing society with the next generation, should
      have no special status?

      1. Gay couples are raising children too. Do you really think disadvantaging their families is going to stop them from existing?

        1. Tom Hoopes says:

          Yes, but it happens naturally with heterosexual couples; by choice only with homosexual couples.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            Heterosexual couples who raise children also chose to raise children. They didn’t raise children by simply being heterosexual. They made a choice. I know a heterosexual guy who had four children from three marriages and he didn’t raise any of them. He chose not to.

          2. abadilla says:

            “I know a heterosexual guy who had four children from three marriages and he didn’t raise any of them. He chose not to.”

            No, he made a choice, he chose pleasure over the responsibility that comes with that sexual pleasure, to be responsible to rear his children. He didn’t rear them because he is absolutely irresponsible, period. I have 134 sophomores in class. I wish you could see the pain in their eyes when a dad simply left and mom had to rear the child alone. I can’t believe you would want to make a solid argument with such irresponsible behavior.
            What that man did is reprehensible, to say the least!

          3. Joe M says:

            In one case the choice is between a man and a woman. In the other, it involves other peoples choices. In fact, it depends completely on choices by other people (none of them being the childs choice).

          4. John Resch says:

            So what

        2. Joe M says:

          Studies have shown that children raised by gay couples do not fare as well as their counterparts on average. So, there is a secular, society-based reason to object to that as well.

          1. Patrick says:

            Joe: this statement is untrue. Unless you’re talking about BSnon-peer reviewed studies by biased entities. Share a cite. I dare you.

          2. Joe M says:

            This link includes a reference to one as well as specific criticism of previous studies:

            By the way, Mark Regnerus’ study was peer-reviewed.

          3. Patrick says:

            The Regenerus study absolutely does not conclude what you say it does. Regenerus himself has stated publicly that people (like you) who take his study to mean that children of gay parents do not fare as well as others are misrepresenting his conclusions.

          4. Joe M says:

            Ok. Before I move on to address that, are you agreeing then that Regnerus’ study is not a “BS non-peer reviewed study”?

      2. Marvin Derks says:

        Isn’t everybody a potential parent? So people who choose to have children because they want to have children and then have children, should have special status? You make it sound like having children in and of itself is some sort of struggle. I’ve never heard one single parent say that they had children because they wanted to provide society with the next generation: until you said it.

        1. Tom Hoopes says:

          Sorry if it’s not clear. The state doesn’t embrace marriage because it is interested in issuing Official Valentines.The state’s interest in marriage is that it “provides society with the next generation.”

          1. John Resch says:

            ……The state’s interest in marriage is that it “provides society with the next generation.”………

            Yeah right…. In your mind but that is not a fact. The states only interest in marriage is law and order for legal purposes and the state makes money on the marriage license fees. If your thinking was true then why is there no law that says “thou must make screaming baby’s if thou is married”. Cut the crap.

        2. Tom Hoopes says:

          What the state wants when it gives me a Driver’s License is different from what I want. Same with marriage. I want to bond with a woman and start a family. The state wants another generation.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            Isn’t the “state” us? The state gets another generation when people have children. Marriage doesn’t cause people to have children. Surely you know that. If no one ever got married we’d still reproduce.

          2. Tom Hoopes says:

            With marriage, you have well-adjusted healthy children; that’s less so with out it.. But what the state gets from marriage is also greater than just “a new generation.” Marriage makes a society *today* that cares more, or as much, about its future as its present. That transforms what we value and how we act.

          3. Marvin Derks says:

            Correct if I’m wrong, but haven’t we had a society based on your concepts of marriage for many hundreds of years and haven’t we had two world wars and hundreds if not thousands of other wars during this period? Where is your proof that your concept of “marriage” is better or produces more “well-adjusted healthy children?”

          4. Joe M says:

            Isn’t your argument lacking in its simplicity? For example, the antagonist of World War II, on the issue of reproduction, had more in common with the founder of Planned Parenthood than the mores of modern America.

          5. Marvin Derks says:

            As usual,this doesn’t have anything to do with the point I was making.

          6. Joe M says:

            I think it does. You attempted to argue that the existence of wars is somehow the measure of whether or not traditional marriage helps children to be well-adjusted and healthy. I pointed out an example that conflicts with the basis of your argument.

            If I missed something, I encourage you to clarify what it is.

          7. Joe M says:

            Marvin. You have missed the point.

            Yes. If no one got married, people would still reproduce. The society-based justification for involving government in marriage is to help people be more successful at it.

            All of our social programs, medicare, social security, etc. are designed with an assumed rate of population growth. Without that growth, our way of life is financially unsustainable.

          8. John Resch says:

            No they don’t.

      3. Patrick says:

        “Society should help potential parents”. It DOES!! Gay marriage will have NO ADVERSE on 97% of potential parents and will have an immediate POSITIVE effect on the remaining 3% of potential parents, so if that’s your argument, well, then its a great argument FOR gay marriage.

        1. Tom Hoopes says:

          Marriage today is “help for child-bearing and child-rearing.” To change its definition to “a government-issued Valentine” will mean that society no longer has a way to encourage and help procreative couples. Over time it will weaken marriage more and more.

          1. Patrick says:

            Tom, that’s 100% untrue. ALL of our public policies and laws that are in effect that encourage and help procreative couples will remain working. If you think you will abandon your own wife because Tim and Tom next door get hitched then your isssue is not with Tim and Tom or our government. Did your great grandfather stop voting when we expanded the laws to allow his sister to vote alongside him?

          2. Joe M says:

            Patrick. You keep making this kind of argument. But, you never seem to answer the response.

            Changing marriage laws do affect people that are not gay. You have already been given examples of ways multiple times.

          3. Patrick says:

            Joe, you’re FAILING miserably if you think that you are convincing people that Tim and Tom down the street marrying each other will have a significant (forget about a material) adverse effect on you. OF COURSE, a law can affect people who are not the direct subject of said law. So what?! I am forced to have my tax dollars benefit single mothers and widowed mothers who refuse to remarry and give their children a father. I am forced to have my tax dollars advantage interracial couples. I am forced to serve women in my restaurant. The law allows a jew to deny the divinity of Christ. And to actvely try to convert me as a Christian. All of those laws “affect” me. But not to the point where it is reasonable to change those laws. There’s your response.

          4. Patrick says:

            And Joe, if you disclike my voting analogy, explain why. The 19th amendment cut the value of my great grandfather’s vote in HALF. Understnd – evefy single right and obligation that touched his life on the local, state and federal level. That’s pretty darn significant. But allowing 2% of the population to marry each other will significantly affect you? No it won’t!

          5. Joe M says:

            Your voting analogy suffers as an apples to oranges comparison. Marriage is a behavior. Being female is not.

          6. Patrick says:

            That’s a difference that does not make a difference to the analogy.

          7. Joe M says:

            It’s a huge difference. In one case, it’s treating a type of person equally. In the other, it’s forcing people to condone another group of peoples behavior.

          8. John Resch says:

            But see YOU don’t get to decide what can be condoned by our laws.
            It also is not a behavior. Its what a person is be it straight or gay.

          9. Joe M says:

            A) I haven’t decided for others what should be important to them. That’s what Patrick did.

            B) Marriage is not a person.

          10. Joe M says:

            Patrick. I have not failed to get you to admit that you don’t care how changing the law affects those who disagree with the change. Evidence that my effort is worth it.

            Changing the definition of marriage forces people to accept marriages in conflict with their religious beliefs. You may not think that is very important. But, the people affected do.

          11. Patrick says:

            And allowing civil divorce forces me to accept a marriage law that is in conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, the religious beliefs of millions of people. But life goes on. Your point is pointless.

          12. Joe M says:

            You don’t get to decide by yourself whether or not the way a law change affects other people is important to them.

            But, at least you’re honest about it and admit that you don’t care about other peoples concerns. In some ways that is better than the constant claim that it doesn’t affect anyone other than gay couples.

          13. Patrick says:

            How much should I care (or rant and rave) that our divorce laws are in conflict with your religious beliefs?

          14. Patrick says:

            And yes, that’s a serious question: since you are asking America to care deeply that gay marriage laws are in conflict with your religious beliefs. Tell us about how you want all of this reconciled.

          15. Joe M says:

            This is another apples to oranges comparison. That people can do things within the law that are in conflict with Catholic beliefs is not the objection.

            The religious freedom problem of changing the definition of marriage is that it forces religious people to accept a definition that is against their beliefs. Divorce laws do not force anyone to accept a definition. They could be divorcing a marriage from an entirely different faith.

          16. Patrick says:

            That is a cop-out. My analogy is not apples and oranges. It is PERFECTLY on point. Our divorce laws allow Catholics to end their marriage for any reason or no reason. That MUST offend your religious sensibilities about what marriage means to its participants. For you to say that “divorce laws do not force anyone to accept a definition” is baloney. the point is what IS a mariaige and what is NOT a marriage. And thats the same thing as defining marriage. You’re being silly – OR – your contorting your reasoning to fit with what you want reason to dictate.

          17. Joe M says:

            Your argument is based on an assumption that is false. Catholic principles do allow for civil divorce. It’s written directly in the Catechism: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

            The religious sensibility conflict you refer to between divorce and gay marriage simply does not exist.

          18. Patrick says:

            Jesus was against divorce. Regardless of what Roman men in hats and dresses say about it.

          19. Joe M says:

            Whether or not Catholics are correct on theology has nothing to do with whether or not civil divorce laws are a problem for Catholics. They are not and thus the argument you tried to float has been debunked.

    3. abadilla says:

      Gee, I wish I could answer you, but I don’t have to, many folks here are doing a great job answering you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.