7 Reasons Same-Sex “Marriage” Isn’t Conservative, or Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter WilliamOK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WilliamOK

Guest
This is a very good article by Dr Jay Richards written to rebut libertarians and conservatives some of whom are beginning to embrace the idea of redefining marriage to include homosexuality.

7 Reasons Same-Sex “Marriage” Isn’t Conservative, or Marriage
stream.org/7-reasons-same-sex-marriage-isnt-conservative-or-marriage/

Dr Richards was also interviewed on Janet Mefferd’s radio show and is very well spoken here if you want to enjoy a podcast on this same article.
janetmefferdpremium.com/2015/03/30/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20150330-hr-2/
 
I disagree with the article for the following reasons.
  1. Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The state is not required to be involved at all other than enforcing the terms of that contract.
  2. Government marriage licenses are a service provided by the government. Since homosexuals pay taxes, they are entitled to the services offered by the government.
  3. What is really at stake here if homosexuals are allowed to be civilly married? Tax breaks and the right to collect your partner’s social security benefits. Those are things that should be available to everybody. Your sexual orientation should not change how much money you are required to give to the government. Social security is money that you earned. It should be your choice to determine the recipients of that money.
  4. Marriage has already been redefined by society via no-fault divorce and the widespread acceptance of contraception.
 
starshiptrooper said:
I disagree with the article for the following reasons.
  1. Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The state is not required to be involved at all other than enforcing the terms of that contract.
  2. Government marriage licenses are a service provided by the government. Since homosexuals pay taxes, they are entitled to the services offered by the government.
Click to expand...
The marriage licence is applicable to those who can and do marry. Who can marry? In light of your point 2, why isn’t the answer “anyone” [who pays taxes] ?

Marriage is a sexual relationship, which is endorsed, supported and even celebrated by the State. This follows from the nature of man and the nature of the institution.

The expression “marriage equality” is a nonsense. By all means, a same sex couple may well have a justifiable claim for State support and accommodation in connection with their single household, asset sharing, their arrangements for mutual care and the like. But these are not the defining attributes of marriage.
 
Rau said:
The marriage licence is applicable to those who can and do marry. Who can marry? In light of your point 2, why isn’t the answer “anyone” [who pays taxes] ?

Marriage is a sexual relationship, which is endorsed, supported and even celebrated by the State. This follows from the nature of man and the nature of the institution.

The expression “marriage equality” is a nonsense. By all means, a same sex couple may well have a justifiable claim for State support and accommodation in connection with their single household, asset sharing, their arrangements for mutual care and the like. But these are not the defining attributes of marriage.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We don’t and never have even considered giving marriage licenses to best friends, roommates, or any manner of other types of close relationships, because the man-woman marital relationship is a unique type of relationship. There is nothing more obvious, but nowadays, we have to try to explain the most obvious realities to same-sex marriage advocates. As I have become fond of saying, “reality is not their friend”.
 
What an absolutely weak article. The man clearly doesn’t understand us libertarians at all. Allow me to refute some of its points.

1.) So what if people seek to redefine marriage for themselves? The Latin Church redefined marriage in the 11th and 12th centuries. Before then, marriage was almost always considered a contract. And worse yet, it was considered a property transfer and investment. Mutual consent wasn’t even required before then. If we go by history, then the Catholic Church should completely overturn its view of marriage because it in itself is a novelty. The whole idea of rejecting any notion of divorce is a complete novelty as well. The point here is that cultures change what they consider marriage to be. If the author of this article is willing to go this far, then let’s repeal laws that enfranchise women. By his logic, all cultures for thousands of years asserted the innate inferiority of women, therefore, it is true. It’s a fallacious and ridiculous proposition that he is pushing.

3.) This is natural law theory at its worst. If we run on natural law theory in its purist form, then such a charge can be dismissed. Homosexuals don’t choose their sexual orientation. They are naturally inclined towards someone of the same sex. Furthermore, marriage is much more than simple sex. If you think otherwise, then please inform the early Christian martyrs who lived in chaste marriages.

4.) Violation of speech and religion? What absolute nonsense. Permitting people to engage in certain contracts that they wish to make does not force you to change your moral or religious opinions on those said contracts.

5.) By this logic, single-parenthood violates children’s rights. And so does divorce. In fact, being born violates children’s rights. They never asked to be born into this world. Has anyone here grown up in a single parent household? While some parents prove to be very capable, many people’s experience sucked. If you want to force children to grow up in single-parent households or orphanages just so they can avoid having two dads or two moms, then I seriously doubt you have the child’s welfare in mind. Not to mention, that banning this kind of thing only encourages abortion.

6.) Marriage according to the state is not a pre-political reality. If you go by history, it has largely been viewed as a contract. That reality only exists in specific religions. And even then, like I said above, the sacramentality of marriage is only an 800 year old notion.

Allow me to say this as well. What are contracts? They are the freedom to associate with an individual(s) in a specific manner. The freedom of association is self-evident and endowed by God. You might object on moral grounds on people’s associations. However, using force to prevent them from associating is inhumane and against the teachings of Christ. When you forbid something by law, you give it the backing of police and ultimately the military. That is an unjust coercion. Like St. John of Chrysostom said, “For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force…it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice.”
 
Rohzek said:
… Homosexuals don’t choose their sexual orientation. They are naturally inclined towards someone of the same sex. Furthermore, marriage is much more than simple sex. If you think otherwise, then please inform the early Christian martyrs who lived in chaste marriages.
…Allow me to say this as well. What are contracts? They are the freedom to associate with an individual(s) in a specific manner. The freedom of association is self-evident and endowed by God. You might object on moral grounds on people’s associations. However, using force to prevent them from associating is inhumane and against the teachings of Christ. When you forbid something by law, you give it the backing of police and ultimately the military. That is an unjust coercion. Like St. John of Chrysostom said, “For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force…it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice.”
Click to expand...
Marriage is much more than sex, but is almost always a sexual relationship. I can’t speak to the history of early Church Martyrs or their marriages, but I suggest those marriages were invariably man+woman. Is there any doubt that sex is fundamentally ordered to procreation? The inclinations experienced by a person, sexual or otherwise, don’t in themselves justify the associated actions, let alone State endorsement of them.

Freedom of association is not threatened by the eligibility conditions for marriage.
 
starshiptrooper said:
I disagree with the article for the following reasons.
  1. Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The state is not required to be involved at all other than enforcing the terms of that contract.
  2. Government marriage licenses are a service provided by the government. Since homosexuals pay taxes, they are entitled to the services offered by the government.
  3. What is really at stake here if homosexuals are allowed to be civilly married? Tax breaks and the right to collect your partner’s social security benefits. Those are things that should be available to everybody. Your sexual orientation should not change how much money you are required to give to the government. Social security is money that you earned. It should be your choice to determine the recipients of that money.
  4. Marriage has already been redefined by society via no-fault divorce and the widespread acceptance of contraception.
Click to expand...
  1. Generally, yes.
  2. Generally, yes.
  3. Not necessarily. The state may grant special privileges and benefits, or impose special obligations, in furtherance of the common good. If the state decides children need their mommies and daddies, the state may certainly pass laws to promote stable natural families.
As a side note, the Catholic Church is not opposed to revisiting specific benefits or responsibilities and looking at which ones ought to be extended to other people.
  1. That’s a non sequitur. “We passed law that undermines our objective.” Okay, then repeal it. What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?
 
Rau said:
Freedom of association is not threatened by the eligibility conditions for marriage.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. You are dictating that certain grown adults cannot form a legal contract that other grown and reasonable adults can. It’s one thing to say that divine law does not sanction it. It’s quite another to say that the state with the full backing of police and military force will not allow it. That is immoral pressure to do what you deem to be good, which is ultimately meaningless and does far more harm to any cause than good.
 
Rohzek said:
Yes, it is. You are dictating that certain grown adults cannot form a legal contract that other grown and reasonable adults can. It’s one thing to say that divine law does not sanction it. It’s quite another to say that the state with the full backing of police and military force will not allow it. That is immoral pressure to do what you deem to be good, which is ultimately meaningless and does far more harm to any cause than good.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I am dictating nothing at all, simply expressing my opinion on the meaning of marriage. Persons are free to associate as they wish. All manner of legal contracts can be formed as the individuals wish.

That the state applies the legal framework of marriage in a particular way is in recognition of its particular nature. This nature derive fundamentally from the nature of man and the complementary nature of the two sexes.

I have no objection to the State composing another legal framework that meets the requirements of other groupings.

We all accept that marriage has eligibility criteria, and they go beyond your reference to “grown adults”. Or do you agree that a pair of elderly sisters ought to be able to marry to avail themselves of some benefits of the associated “legal contract”?
 
Rau said:
Not at all. I am dictating nothing at all, simply expressing my opinion on the meaning of marriage. Persons are free to associate as they wish. All manner of legal contracts can be formed as the individuals wish.

That the state applies the legal framework of marriage in a particular way is in recognition of its particular nature. This nature derive fundamentally from the nature of man and the complementary nature of the two sexes.

I have no objection to the State composing another legal framework that meets the requirements of other groupings.

We all accept that marriage has eligibility criteria, and they go beyond your reference to “grown adults”. Or do you agree that a pair of elderly sisters ought to be able to marry to avail themselves of some benefits of the associated “legal contract”?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do actually think they should be able to avail themselves. I find it morally objectionable, but I’m not going to forbid their freedom of association with the force of law.

The requirement of “grown adults” is only a requirement because legal contracts require consent. If one is not at the age of reason then they cannot possibly consent knowing any of the potential ramifications of their agreements.
 
Rohzek said:
Yes, I do actually think they should be able to avail themselves. I find it morally objectionable, but I’m not going to forbid their freedom of association with the force of law.

The requirement of “grown adults” is only a requirement because legal contracts require consent. If one is not at the age of reason then they cannot possibly consent knowing any of the potential ramifications of their agreements.
Click to expand...
If close relatives can marry, it would seem you have jettisoned the underlying nature of marriage, and allowed the legal framework to entirely subsume it.

In which case, what on earth is morally objectionable about 2 elderly sisters marrying? :confused:

Oh, wait a minute, you too presume marriage to be a sexual relationship? Is that it? But hang on, why would sex between two persons - of the same sex - have any relevance to a “contractual arrangement” into which they might enter?

What exactly are you arguing for? It is not freedom to associate, for that is not changed by any rules pertaining to marriage.
 
Rau said:
If close relatives can marry, it would seem you have jettisoned the underlying nature of marriage, and allowed the legal framework to entirely subsume it.

In which case, what on earth is morally objectionable about 2 elderly sisters marrying? :confused:

Oh, wait a minute, you too presume marriage to be a sexual relationship? Is that it? But hang on, why would sex between two persons - of the same sex - have any relevance to a “contractual arrangement” into which they might enter?

What exactly are you arguing for? It is not freedom to associate, for that is not changed by any rules pertaining to marriage.
Click to expand...
I never concerned myself with the nature of marriage. I concerned myself with the cultural and legal understanding of marriage. They don’t have to overlap.

As for the elderly sisters, the answer is easy, it is immoral because God says so. There are a ton of things that are not illegal, but are generally held to be immoral. Such as working on the sabbath, lying with the exception of under oath, fornication, flipping off your dad, common law marriage in the cases of living together for an extended period of time, etc. Those are morally objectionable, but not illegal.

It is a violation of freedom of association. It denies a specific group of people from forging a contract that would benefit them. They otherwise have to pay penalties that others can easily avoid, such as foregoing tax benefits.
 
Rohzek said:
I never concerned myself with the nature of marriage. I concerned myself with the cultural and legal understanding of marriage. They don’t have to overlap.

As for the elderly sisters, the answer is easy, it is immoral because God says so. There are a ton of things that are not illegal, but are generally held to be immoral. Such as working on the sabbath, lying with the exception of under oath, fornication, flipping off your dad, common law marriage in the cases of living together for an extended period of time, etc. Those are morally objectionable, but not illegal.

It is a violation of freedom of association. It denies a specific group of people from forging a contract that would benefit them. They otherwise have to pay penalties that others can easily avoid, such as foregoing tax benefits.
Click to expand...
If two men living together deserve a tax break, argue the case. Perhaps three might benefit too? This has little to do with marriage.

The elderly sisters have the same right to a tax break as sexually involved men. In fact, whether the sisters engage sexually would be quite irrelevant, wouldn’t it?

Your argument is not about marriage.
 
Rau said:
If two men living together deserve a tax break, argue the case. Perhaps three might benefit too? This has little to do with marriage.

The elderly sisters have the same right to a tax break as sexually involved men. In fact, whether the sisters engage sexually would be quite irrelevant, wouldn’t it?

Your argument is not about marriage.
Click to expand...
For the first line, it has everything to do with marriage. Marriage is a form of association. And yes, three people should be able to marry too.

As for the second line, please clarify your argument.

As for the third, see my comment above.
 
Rohzek said:
For the first line, it has everything to do with marriage. Marriage is a form of association. And yes, three people should be able to marry too.

As for the second line, please clarify your argument.

As for the third, see my comment above.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a sexual relationship arising from the nature of man.

Arbitrary groupings of any number of people (other than relatives according to your earlier post), justified on the basis of sexual relationship and a right to State benefits, would seem
to have nothing to do with marriage.
 
Rau said:
Marriage is a sexual relationship arising from the nature of man.

Arbitrary groupings of any number of people (other than relatives according to your earlier post), justified on the basis of sexual relationship and a right to State benefits, would seem
to have nothing to do with marriage.
Click to expand...
That is a rather confusing statement, so I will define what I think a legal marriage should qualify as.

Marriage - an intimate relationship that generally includes sexual relations between two or more individuals that has been solidified through a contract that outlines certain requirements, obligations, and understandings. This would not exclude relatives from marrying each other either.

I keep my religious opinions on what qualifies as a holy marriage out of the law. It is not my place to impose such standards upon others. They can decide for themselves if they want to abide by those standards.
 
Rohzek said:
…I will define what I think a legal marriage should qualify as.

Marriage - an intimate relationship that generally includes sexual relations between two or more individuals that has been solidified through a contract that outlines certain requirements, obligations, and understandings. This would not exclude relatives from marrying each other either…
Click to expand...
A novel proposition. One wonders why the sexual element is included in that proposition.
 
I don’t think the article holds much solid ground against pr same sex marriage.

Objection: In reason 1: Dr. Richards fails to name one example of a non western culture that is against same sex marriage and instead generalizes the majority of cultures. In order to back up the reason an example would be rather useful than saying “virtually all cultures”.

Objection: In reason 2: While many religions doctrines or teachers have ever been in favor of same sex marriage. The secularist who supports same sex marriage would care less about the doctrines of religions. Thus reason 2 is specifically for religious readers to take seriously.

No objections to reasons 3 or 4.

Objection: In reason 5: Hypothetically a mother and a father are the best and most natural form of parenting. However, what about single parents, children being raised by grandparents? With high divorce rates many same sex couples have started adopting whereas many children would be in orphanages.

No objections to reasons 6 or 7.

Is this how Thomistics write just kidding :D:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top