Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you ban all marriage not recognised by the Church?

[epan]

I haven’t read this whole thread, because its quite long, but I’ll give my answer to the OP.

I would not try to make such marriages illegal, the reason being that they still seem geared towards the states interest. If there are going to be any state laws with respect to who can and cannot be married legally, they need to be based off of an understanding of the purpose of having legal marriages in the first place as opposed to just private marriages. Why is marriage recognized by the state and why are people given special privileges for entering into this state? The only answer I can see is that it is beneficial for the state to encourage both procreation and the creation of a stable environment for the growth of children. This is necessary for the maintenance of the state by the , production, if you will, of more stable, healthy citizens who can maintain it. Because of this, any laws pertaining to who can and cannot marry legally must be aimed towards encouragin procreation, and creating a stable environment for the children once they are conceived. Same-sex couples can’t procreate, their relationship with each other is necessarily a sterile relationship, therefore I see no reason for the state to expand marriage privileges to such couples. Heterosexual couples who have been divorced can still form a fertile union and a stable environment for their children, so I see no reason for a legal ban on such people becoming legally married.

That is essentially one of the legal arguments which has been upheld in the courts. Because the state cannot show a compelling interest in preventing gay marriage, then the right cannot be denied. Further, all the benefits that you claim for heterosexual marriage are also present in gay marriages, with the exception of procreation, which is not a legal requirement of marriage at all.

 

[thewanderer]

That is essentially one of the legal arguments which has been upheld in the courts. Because the state cannot show a compelling interest in preventing gay marriage, then the right cannot be denied. Further, all the benefits that you claim for heterosexual marriage are also present in gay marriages, with the exception of procreation, which is not a legal requirement of marriage at all.

Sure, the state doesn’t recognize it. My point is it seems pretty obvious that they should. I mean, I think its pretty obvious that most people today don’t think about it the way that I do, mostly because they have grown up to associate legal marriage too much with simply a romantic relationship, so much so that many people claim they need legal marriage so that their relationship can be validated, as if they cannot have a truly loving relationship without the governments recognition. I realize that thats what legal marriage is viewed as by so many people, my point is that by taking a sstep back and thinking about it objectively, it is the place of any state to take steps to ensure it has good, healthy, productive future citizens to maintain itself, and the most obvious way to do that is to have some sort of legal recognition of the unions which bring about procreation and have proven to be extremely beneficial to the raising of children. When you start adding people to this mix who are not even capable on any level to have kids then the idea of the state promoting the wellbeing of its future citizens gets lost. In the states today it already has become lost somewhat, and allowing same-sex marriage will remove it from the picture even further. Like I’ve said before, I’m stepping back from the current state of affairs and thinking about what the ideal is, and making my opinions based on that, regardless of the way people view it today. I highly doubt that the view of marriage is going to be able, practically speaking, to be changed in this regard, so much so that sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to let everyone marry and just create some new legal recognition for the sake of promoting a lifelong stable environment for the begetting and raising of future citizens, but then again, I doubt that that will ever actually happen either,its just a dream.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I have a question for Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you given the political practicality of such a move, also ban other marriages deemed not to be marriages by the Church - such as the ‘marriages’ of divorced people, or the ‘marriages’ of baptized Catholics outside the Church? if so, I assume for the same reason you oppose gays being able to marry each other. If not, why not, and why are you not campaigning for a ban?

Well, I would ban divorce unless there is some abuse going on, and those remarriages. But marriage between a man and a women of any religion is called “natural marriage”. Marriage between two baptized Christians is called “sacramental marriage”. But marriage is always between one man and one woman and is indissoluble.

 

[MarkInOregon]

So do lots of things. Doesn’t mean they should be illegal.

O.K.-- maybe you should have specified only physical harm. What about theft–should there be a law against that–or is it o.k. if no one is physically harmed?

Peace,
Mark

 

[epan]

Actually, to be honest, I would have no problem with excluding them from legal marriage. There are further arguments the Church has which would make a distinction with respect to why they would be allowed a religious ceremony while homosexuals would not, but for the purposes of the state? I have 0 problem with the state excluding such problem from legal marriage. They can still make a loving comitment to each other if they want to, the state can’t interfere with that, they can even make such a comitment in the setting of a special celebration, including whatever elements they wish, but why would the state give them special benefits (at the expense of other citizens) if there is no way for their relationship to result in great benefit to the state, such as more, healthy, well-balanced citizens to maintain the state? I see no reason for it so I see no problem with the state making a law that excludes them from legal marriage.

It is one thing to promote a “social good”, and quite another to decline to deny a “right”. While the state may choose certain economic or taxation policies, crop subsidies, road and school maintenance, defense, and so on, as being for the betterment of society, there is also the principle that the behavior (freedom) of an indivual should only be infringed upon, if that behavior contradicts a “compelling interest” of the state.

So, we have this hybrid situation, where the state has historically recognized the value of marriage, and conferred special benefits on it. Yet, marriage itself has clearly changed. Due to that change in the definition of spousal duties and gender legal status within marriage, the matter becomes one of denying individual rights when one denies marriage equality among genders. To do so, the state would be required to show a compelling reason which would allow it to do so. This has been tested, at least in one state supreme court, and the state was unable to show such an interest. The matter was not heard by the US Court, unfortunately.

At this point, it appears that the reasons to deny marriage equality are religious, and not legal. While some religous groups may decide not to endorse marriage equality, while other religious groups may choose to endorse marriage equality, those who oppose gay marriage are requiring the state to choose among competing religious views. Yet, these same religious groups are quick to complain when the state appears to favor a religion other than their own.

 

[scipio337]

It is one thing to promote a “social good”, and quite another to decline to deny a “right”. While the state may choose certain economic or taxation policies, crop subsidies, road and school maintenance, defense, and so on, as being for the betterment of society, there is also the principle that the behavior (freedom) of an indivual should only be infringed upon, if that behavior contradicts a “compelling interest” of the state.

So, we have this hybrid situation, where the state has historically recognized the value of marriage, and conferred special benefits on it. Yet, marriage itself has clearly changed. Due to that change in the definition of spousal duties and gender legal status within marriage, the matter becomes one of denying individual rights when one denies marriage equality among genders. To do so, the state would be required to show a compelling reason which would allow it to do so. This has been tested, at least in one state supreme court, and the state was unable to show such an interest. The matter was not heard by the US Court, unfortunately.

At this point, it appears that the reasons to deny marriage equality are religious, and not legal. While some religous groups may decide not to endorse marriage equality, while other religious groups may choose to endorse marriage equality, those who oppose gay marriage are requiring the state to choose among competing religious views. Yet, these same religious groups are quick to complain when the state appears to favor a religion other than their own.

I would say the onus of a compelling interest for overturning 2,000+ years of historcal precedent would belong to the state. See “strict scrutiny”

“Marriage equality”, LOL.

Interesting to note that every state that currently has same sex marriages also previously had same sex civil unions and domestic partnerships.

I guess all equal protection is not treated…equal.

 

[Bill_Martin]

O.K.-- maybe you should have specified only physical harm. What about theft–should there be a law against that–or is it o.k. if no one is physically harmed?

Peace,
Mark

Theft is quantifiable, provable, and in a way does involve physical harm because physical things are taken away from somebody.

You can’t prove that same sex couples are harming society in the way that you can prove that murder or theft harms the victim of it. There’s no way of measuring it and I don’t trust the government to make the right decisions if they are allowed to ban things based on an idea of the harm they cause that can’t be proved, disproved, or measured.

 

[fix]

So, we have this hybrid situation, where the state has historically recognized the value of marriage, and conferred special benefits on it. Yet, marriage itself has clearly changed.

How has it changed?

Due to that change in the definition of spousal duties and gender legal status within marriage, the matter becomes one of denying individual rights when one denies marriage equality among genders. To do so, the state would be required to show a compelling reason which would allow it to do so. This has been tested, at least in one state supreme court, and the state was unable to show such an interest. The matter was not heard by the US Court, unfortunately.

These legal issues are mostly amusing. How compelling interest is defined, or if a precedent is undone, is really a matter of who is sitting in the Judge’s sit at any particular time.

At this point, it appears that the reasons to deny marriage equality are religious, and not legal. While some religous groups may decide not to endorse marriage equality, while other religious groups may choose to endorse marriage equality, those who oppose gay marriage are requiring the state to choose among competing religious views. Yet, these same religious groups are quick to complain when the state appears to favor a religion other than their own.

Marriage equality? That is doublespeak. Unequals ought to be treated unequally. Comparing faux marriage with authentic marriage is an injustice.

 

[thewanderer]

It is one thing to promote a “social good”, and quite another to decline to deny a “right”. While the state may choose certain economic or taxation policies, crop subsidies, road and school maintenance, defense, and so on, as being for the betterment of society, there is also the principle that the behavior (freedom) of an indivual should only be infringed upon, if that behavior contradicts a “compelling interest” of the state.

So, we have this hybrid situation, where the state has historically recognized the value of marriage, and conferred special benefits on it. Yet, marriage itself has clearly changed. Due to that change in the definition of spousal duties and gender legal status within marriage, the matter becomes one of denying individual rights when one denies marriage equality among genders. To do so, the state would be required to show a compelling reason which would allow it to do so. This has been tested, at least in one state supreme court, and the state was unable to show such an interest. The matter was not heard by the US Court, unfortunately.

At this point, it appears that the reasons to deny marriage equality are religious, and not legal. While some religous groups may decide not to endorse marriage equality, while other religious groups may choose to endorse marriage equality, those who oppose gay marriage are requiring the state to choose among competing religious views. Yet, these same religious groups are quick to complain when the state appears to favor a religion other than their own.

Again, I am basing my opinions not just on the state of affairs as they currently are, but on how they ought to be. Yes, many people today do not view legal marriage as being for the sake of ensuring good future citizens, but it is pretty clear to me that this is what it should be for the sake of the state itself. Its not an argument thats going to sway the courts because of course they need to work with what they’re given and because of the current views and legislation surrounding marriage which have already started to view it as simply a relationship between two people, not as something ordered towards the production of good citizens.

I’m gonna be perfectly honest here, I don’t understand why you are disagreeing with me. I am talking about the ideal, that which every country ought to aim for. You are replying by saying that our country today doesn’t currently follow that ideal. I am well aware of that, but I don’t understand how that contradictss anything that I have said or that shows it is bad to want the best for ones country.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Theft is quantifiable, provable, and in a way does involve physical harm because physical things are taken away from somebody.

You can’t prove that same sex couples are harming society in the way that you can prove that murder or theft harms the victim of it. There’s no way of measuring it and I don’t trust the government to make the right decisions if they are allowed to ban things based on an idea of the harm they cause that can’t be proved, disproved, or measured.

Mr. Martin,
In the original post of yours that I responded to you said “I think government’s role should not be to enforce morality in cases where nobody else is directly harmed”. You then went on to cite sins (such as adultery) where you said “nobody else is placed in danger or harmed”. I simply pointed out that contrary to your assertion individuals as well as society are indeed harmed by things such as adultery.

You then went on to say “Physical harm is different from emotional harm.” and claimed it is “impossible to provide evidence for or against emotional harm in court”. I went on to point out that I wasn’t talking about “emotional” harm but was thinking of economic harm. (Though I would point out that courts do evaluate and award damages for emotional distress–so it is not exactly impossible.)

Your response was basically–lots of things cause economic harm and that doesn’t mean they should be illegal. I suggested maybe you should have specified physical harm to which I get the above reponse.

I will simply say–that I think it is a stretch to put theft into the “physical” category as you apparently meant it. I was not attempting to prove anything regarding same sex couples and society. I was responding to a claim you made regarding nobody being harmed or placed in danger by something like adultery–by pointing out that people are indeed harmed by it–and that harm can indeed be proved and probably measured. I don’t have an issue with you taking a position on the types of harm that the government should or shouldn’t ban but I do have an issue with those who think no one is harmed (or that the harm is somehow trivial) by something like adultery and the damage it does to families.

What I object to is statements like the goverment shouldn’t legislate morality where no one else is harmed and then when the harm is pointed out the reponse saying "well no thats the wrong kind of harm. " For example: in our short exchange first emotional harm didn’t count as harm, then economic harm didn’t count either unless it was a certain kind of economic harm like theft of physical property which you would redefine as physical harm rather than economic harm. You did not simply mean “harm” but a specific and limited kind of harm.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Bill_Martin]

Mr. Martin,
In the original post of yours that I responded to you said “I think government’s role should not be to enforce morality in cases where nobody else is directly harmed”. You then went on to cite sins (such as adultery) where you said “nobody else is placed in danger or harmed”. I simply pointed out that contrary to your assertion individuals as well as society are indeed harmed by things such as adultery.

You then went on to say “Physical harm is different from emotional harm.” and claimed it is “impossible to provide evidence for or against emotional harm in court”. I went on to point out that I wasn’t talking about “emotional” harm but was thinking of economic harm. (Though I would point out that courts do evaluate and award damages for emotional distress–so it is not exactly impossible.)

Your response was basically–lots of things cause economic harm and that doesn’t mean they should be illegal. I suggested maybe you should have specified physical harm to which I get the above reponse.

I will simply say–that I think it is a stretch to put theft into the “physical” category as you apparently meant it. I was not attempting to prove anything regarding same sex couples and society. I was responding to a claim you made regarding nobody being harmed or placed in danger by something like adultery–by pointing out that people are indeed harmed by it–and that harm can indeed be proved and probably measured. I don’t have an issue with you taking a position on the types of harm that the government should or shouldn’t ban but I do have an issue with those who think no one is harmed (or that the harm is somehow trivial) by something like adultery and the damage it does to families.

What I object to is statements like the goverment shouldn’t legislate morality where no one else is harmed and then when the harm is pointed out the reponse saying "well no thats the wrong kind of harm. " For example: in our short exchange first emotional harm didn’t count as harm, then economic harm didn’t count either unless it was a certain kind of economic harm like theft of physical property which you would redefine as physical harm rather than economic harm. You did not simply mean “harm” but a specific and limited kind of harm.

Peace,
Mark

Correct, I wasn’t very clear in my earlier post(s).

I stand by my statement that I do not think the government should ban same sex unions. Perhaps a clearer way of explaining my reasoning would have been to say I don’t want them banned because they are between consenting adults, whereas theft, and other crimes are not.

 

[phoooiee]

It is one thing to promote a “social good”, and quite another to decline to deny a “right”.

I would be interested in everyone’s thoughts on what makes a “right” a “right”.

Can “freedom” and “human rights” really be separated from “the social good” as a whole?

 

[mangy_dog]

I have a question for Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you given the political practicality of such a move, also ban other marriages deemed not to be marriages by the Church - such as the ‘marriages’ of divorced people, or the ‘marriages’ of baptized Catholics outside the Church? if so, I assume for the same reason you oppose gays being able to marry each other. If not, why not, and why are you not campaigning for a ban?

These are not in the same arena.

Homosexual unions are not marriages. Homosexual unions are a direct attack on christianity as a whole and the family nucleus in particular.

And no, homosexual unions do not make a family-it is a mockery and a blasphemy against the Sacrament of marriage.

No amount of “politcal correctness” or any other new age lingo will ever make it right. It will just disguise it-so it presents a “normal” face to society.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

To anyone who believes the government should recognize same sex marriage, would you also support government recognition of three-way marriage? (marriage of three equal partners). If not, then how is your objection to three-way marriage any more justifiable than my objection to same sex marriage? (I am speaking only of official recognition with special marriage benefits, not the right of people to live together.)

 

[EviPolevhia]

To anyone who believes the government should recognize same sex marriage, would you also support government recognition of three-way marriage? (marriage of three equal partners). If not, then how is your objection to three-way marriage any more justifiable than my objection to same sex marriage? (I am speaking only of official recognition with special marriage benefits, not the right of people to live together.)

Stop reading ahead in the Liberal Agenda Playbook!

On a serious note, yes I would. Seeing as I don’t see marriage as being intrinsically connected to procreation, I don’t really see what’s so special about two people either. Then again I’m just a crazy hell bound heathen, so my opinion doesn’t matter too much.

 

[epan]

I would say the onus of a compelling interest for overturning 2,000+ years of historcal precedent would belong to the state. See “strict scrutiny”

“Marriage equality”, LOL.

Interesting to note that every state that currently has same sex marriages also previously had same sex civil unions and domestic partnerships.

I guess all equal protection is not treated…equal.

You have stated it well, other than having it backwards. Marriage has changed in its legal definition in the past 70 years or so. The courts are simply recognizing the implications of that. It’s not a complicated argument, nor is it sudden or revolutionary. It has taken the better part of a century, and was not hard to predict. The women’s rights opponents were successful in predicting many of these outcomes.

At this point, the revolutionary thinking would be by those who think that the clock can suddenly go backwards, because they happen not to like the historic momentum.

 

[epan]

I would be interested in everyone’s thoughts on what makes a “right” a “right”.

Can “freedom” and “human rights” really be separated from “the social good” as a whole?

Yes, I think that most societies agree that the promotion of human rights, and of individual freedom, are of social good. Not all believe that.

But there there is disagreement on what liberties may be granted, and which need regulation. For example, should a medical practitioner be allowed to practice medicine without any licensing by the state? A pure libertarian might say, “Yes, let the buyer beware, and the market determine what an untrained dentist is worth.” In the U.S., the freedom to practice dentistry without the proper education and licensing is illegal, and subject to criminal prosecution. The protection of the potential consumer is considered sufficient reason to proscribe the freedom of the would be dentist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Stop reading ahead in the Liberal Agenda Playbook!

On a serious note, yes I would. Seeing as I don’t see marriage as being intrinsically connected to procreation, I don’t really see what’s so special about two people either.

In that case how would you feel about ending all governmental recognition of marriage for everyone, making marriage a purely personal or religious thing? If there is nothing special about marriage then why should we as a society grant the institution any special breaks?

 

[livingwordunity]

In that case how would you feel about ending all governmental recognition of marriage for everyone? If there is nothing special about marriage then why should we as a society grant the institution any special breaks?

The whole point of government incentives for marriage is to help families with children. Homosexuals only make up about 2 - 10% of the population, and of this number only a few are interested in adopting children (to make a political statement with it, I suspect). Most homosexuals seem to have no interest whatsoever in having children around. San Francisco’s dwindling population of households with children is a prime example of the “gay lifestyle” being incompatible with children most likely because the “gay lifestyle” revolves around unbridled hedonistic sodomy. Because children are naturally products of heterosexual unions or traditional marriage ending support for traditional marriage would amount to abandoning support for these children.

 

[epan]

The whole point of government incentives for marriage is to help families with children. Homosexuals only make up about 2 - 10% of the population, and of this number only a few are interested in adopting children (to make a political statement with it, I suspect). Most homosexuals seem to have no interest whatsoever in having children around. San Francisco’s dwindling population of households with children is a prime example of the “gay lifestyle” being incompatible with children most likely because the “gay lifestyle” revolves around unbridled hedonistic sodomy. Because children are naturally products of heterosexual unions or traditional marriage ending support for traditional marriage would amount to abandoning support for these children.

So, you would advocate banning marriage for infertile couples?

Where did you find your facts on the percentage of gay married people who want to adopt children? Please cite your source.

The picture of SF is far more complex than your simplistic view. Have you ever actually been to SF? How long have you lived in SF? How did you come to your opinion?