[Vision2020] Same sex marriage

Tue Jul 17 22:52:20 PDT 2012

Good post. I'm sorry but I'm in a "philosophical" mood, so I've got to
challenge everything.

Is there anyone who thinks that "churches should be forced to perform
same sex weddings against their beliefs"? Suppose you want to get
married by a Catholic priest. I image that one might accommodate you.
But does that force anything upon the Catholic Church?

As I said, I have performed marriages and I'm willing to do it again
(just contact me if you're interested). And if you'd like a religious
ceremony, I can accommodate. But I'd hate to think that by doing so,
I'd be forcing any particular church to do anything; I'd hate to think
that my actions had anything to do with any particular church at all,
even the church of which I am (through my online degree) a minister.
Joe

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the response anyway Paul - I was really hoping you could just try
> your best to take the indefensible side of keeping same sex marriage bans in
> place.  I've racked my brain trying to think of even a single solitary -
> even a stretch - of a reason to continue denying same sex couples and
> families with same sex parents equal rights / benefits / protections of
> married couples and I continue to just come up blank so I'm disappointed
> that no one could step forward and enlighten me.
>
> In short, can anyone explain why same couples don't deserve to be as equally
> miserable as married couples?  Also, for folks who are bent out of shape
> about homo sex, the best way to get people to completely stop having sex
> would be to encourage them to get married.  Thus, same sex marriage is a win
> for everyone although I don't believe that churches should be forced to
> perform same sex weddings against their beliefs.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:22:20 -0700
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> CC: kmmos1 at frontier.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Same sex marriage
>
> On 07/15/2012 06:28 PM, Scott Dredge wrote:
>
> Paul / Gary - can either of you give it a shot at playing devil's advocate?
> And by that, I mean a good shot, not just some half assed, weak, grasping at
> straws attempt.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> I really can't.  If I had to attack gay marriage, I would do it by attacking
> the very concept of marriage as a whole.  It's a religious institution that
> has no place in a presumed secular society.  It's formed straight out of
> tradition, and the world has moved on.  Every secular benefit given to
> married couples should be individually scrutinized in order to determine if
> it could in fact be given out to others as well as married couples.  Why
> shouldn't your best friend be able to make medical decisions on your behalf
> if you are incapacitated, if it's been setup that way before-hand?  Why
> shouldn't any number of people be able to sign up to jointly care for a
> child, receiving tax benefits in exchange?  And so on.
>
> Gay marriages would be just as wrong as... non-gay marriages.
>
> Paul
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:46:06 -0700
> From: kmmos1 at frontier.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Same sex marriage
>
> On 7/15/2012 4:37 AM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> Sorry, Ken, but that is one of the silliest arguments I have heard. Marriage
> has nothing to do with if people have children or not.
>
>
> Marriage has to do with, among other things, with whether people have social
> permission to procreate. Same-sex marriage implies such permission is not
> granted to individuals within that relationship.
>
> You can be married and have no children and be not married and have 10
> children.
>
>
> Of course. Physical biology is not prevented by marriage or its absence.
>
> Many same sex couples can, do, will, and want to have children, and make
> damn good parents too.
>
>
> Likewise true.
>
> It is actually easier to have more children if you are NOT in a monogamous
> relationship for both genders.
>
>
> If a person lacks a spouse who would disapprove of extramarital sexuality,
> and if that person cares not whether pregnancy results from personal sexual
> activity, then more children may result.
>
> A man is more able to impregnate more women, and a woman would be more
> likely to get pregnant with more men.
>
>
> Marriage may have a counter-intuitive prophylactic effect as a result of
> each partner encouraging more responsibility from the other without regard
> to partner gender.
>
> More irresponsible, less thoughtful, people may cause more pregnancies
> without regard to partner gender if they are not monogamous. If they are
> monogamous fewer pregnancies will result within same-sex couples, whether or
> not they are married.
>
> People should not, or be socially engineered to marry a person of a gender
> they are not attracted to, that is unfair to one or both of them.
>
>
> I am not suggesting unwanted marriage. Remaining single is just as available
> an option.
>
> As well as others that could be deprived of their true affections and love.
>
> Marriage should ALWAYS be about two consenting adults who love each other.
>
>
> How romantic. And in many cases, how unrealistic. Over the centuries
> marriage has more often been an arrangement implementing social
> practicalities rather than love. Given the intractable societal burdens of
> overpopulation, societal concerns may well trump personal preferences for
> multiple reasons -- food sharing, housing sharing, and many facets of more
> efficient societal use of many limited resources.
>
> And nothing else. People deserve nothing less.
>
>
> Whether or not our current mixture of preferences will survive increasing
> population pressures is both uncertain and unlikely.
>
>
> Ken
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================