Civil Homosexual Marriage

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think that is a fine argument, and it seems to be basically what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained in its document “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.”

In Section 6 of that document, we find this summary: Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good. source It seems to me that this paragraph is very similar to the simple argument you rejected. The argument you rejected can be put into syllogistic logic this way: (1) the State should not support anything immoral, (2) homosexual unions are immoral, (3) therefore the State should not support homosexual unions.

The CDF document seems to support this syllogism. For premise 1, the CDF document says, “[Every] law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law,” which to me seems similar to premise 1: “the State should not support anything immoral.” For premise 2, the CDF document says, “Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason,” which to me seems similar to premise 2: “homosexual unions are immoral.” For the conclusion, the CDF document says, “the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty,” which to me seems similar to the conclusion, “therefore the State should not support homosexual unions.”

Therefore, I think the CDF does recognize and defend the argument that you said the Church doesn’t use. That seems true. That’s true too, and I think that argument appears in several Church documents as well. But there is room for more than one objection to homosexual unions.

Excellent points Dimar.

i would add one more very important statement from the CDF document:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

 

[DrTaffy]

The John Jay report was a complete white-wash
…]
There are many critics including Catholic League President Bill Donohue who continues to claim the crisis was essentially a “gay problem,”

But you are the only one who I have seen claim that “Every priest involved in the child molesting scandal admitted to being homosexual” which is a blatant indefensible falsehood.

Some like Bill Donahue try to claim that even a man who is repulsed by the idea of sex with adult men, clearly attracted to adult women, in a relationship with an adult woman, but who once molested a boy should be classed as ‘homosexual’. This is at least etymologically defensible, but clearly irrelevant to this debate. Men with no sexual or ronmantic interest in adult men will not be in or interested in same sex marriage between adults, so do not present an argument against same sex marriage or the suitability of same sex adult couples as parents.

You are lumping together two very different groups to create artificial statistics to advance your prejudice. I may as well define a term Catholics And Child Abusers and quote statistics on the same to argue that all CACAs should be barred from marriage, child rearing or any profession involving childcare. :nope:

Worse, you seem not to care that such self-serving propoganda can only hurt the children.

 

[DrTaffy]

The argument is that traditional marriage is the fundamental building block of human society, and therefore this particularly special relationship needs to be promoted by the state.

How many people are seriously suggesting an end to state recognition of heterosexual marriage, or (what you seem to me to be referring to) state recognition of biological parenthood?

I don’t dispute that you can find a few, just as I can find christians calling for burning at the stake or concentration camps for homosexuals. But any significant number, or is this just an absurd strawman?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How many people are seriously suggesting an end to state recognition of heterosexual marriage, or (what you seem to me to be referring to) state recognition of biological parenthood?

This is not much of a refutation of Havard’s quote:

The argument is that traditional marriage is the fundamental building block of human society, and therefore this particularly special relationship needs to be promoted by the state.

For a special relationship to be “promoted” it needs to be recognized in a way that other relationships are not. If every relationship were granted the same status as traditional marriage, this would effectively remove whatever benefit that relationship might have gained, and cancel out the benefit to society of promoting that relationship. A more proper argument for you to make is that traditional marriage is not the fundamental building block of human society, and that the state has just been wrong in acting as if it were, not that I think you can make that argument either.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But you are the only one who I have seen claim that “Every priest involved in the child molesting scandal admitted to being homosexual” which is a blatant indefensible falsehood.

You forget so soon. After the John Jay report was released the Vatican instructed seminaries and bishops to NOT ordain homosexuals because every priest involved in the scandals were homosexuals. The Vatican did not accept the report.

Some like Bill Donahue try to claim that even a man who is repulsed by the idea of sex with adult men, clearly attracted to adult women, in a relationship with an adult woman, but who once molested a boy should be classed as ‘homosexual’. This is at least etymologically defensible, but clearly irrelevant to this debate.

It is also very logically defensible. (Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…) Man molests boy = homosexual behavior brought on by homosexual desire.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12661825:

How many people are seriously suggesting an end to state recognition of heterosexual marriage, or (what you seem to me

to be referring to) state recognition of biological parenthood?

This is not much of a refutation of Havard’s quote:

The argument is that traditional marriage is the fundamental building block of human society, and therefore this particularly special relationship needs to be promoted by the state

Why not? That the state ‘promotes’ homosexual marriage (or for that matter any other issue such as renewable energy) in no way changes the fact that it is ‘promoting’ heterosexual marriage as much as it ever did.

For a special relationship to be “promoted” it needs to be recognized in a way that other relationships are not.

Why? If your local supermarket offers a BOGOF deal on bananas, it is promoting bananas, even if it also offers BOGOF deals on other products.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12661813:

But you are the only one who I have seen claim that "Every

priest involved in the child molesting scandal admitted to being homosexual" which is a blatant indefensible falsehood.

You forget so soon. After the John Jay report was released the Vatican instructed seminaries and bishops to NOT ordain homosexuals because every priest involved in the scandals were homosexuals. The Vatican did not accept the report.

Which in no way supports or defends your assertion that “Every priest involved in the child molesting scandal admitted to being homosexual” which is still a blatant indefensible falsehood.

It is also very logically defensible. (Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…) Man molests boy = homosexual behavior brought on by homosexual desire.

So lumping together Catholics And Child Abusers also makes sense to you? Or you see no significant difference between raping a child and a consensual adult relationship? How, exactly, do you qualify those priests who abused girls as having “admitted to being homosexual”?

 

[dmar198]

Why not? That the state ‘promotes’ homosexual marriage (or for that matter any other issue such as renewable energy) in no way changes the fact that it is ‘promoting’ heterosexual marriage as much as it ever did.

It seems to me that any promotion of evil involves a neglect of one’s duty to promote the good. This is because I think the duty to promote the good embraces all circumstances, including every particular use of one’s efforts to do anything. Therefore, if one promotes homosexual unions, one is using up energy that should be spent in the service of good, including the promotion of marriage. What do you think of that argument?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Why not? That the state ‘promotes’ homosexual marriage (or for that matter any other issue such as renewable energy) in no way changes the fact that it is ‘promoting’ heterosexual marriage as much as it ever did.

The state has every reason to promote traditional marriage and discourage homosexual relationships because the state depends on traditional marriage to maintain itself…future generations.

When the state legitimizes homosexual unions it is essentially promoting homosexual behavior. We know that spreads disease. The state is thus failing in it obligation to protect the public health.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why not? That the state ‘promotes’ homosexual marriage (or for that matter any other issue such as renewable energy) in no way changes the fact that it is ‘promoting’ heterosexual marriage as much as it ever did.

Why? If your local supermarket offers a BOGOF deal on bananas, it is promoting bananas, even if it also offers BOGOF deals on other products.

The difference is that unlike the supermarket, the state is us. Whatever the state does, we all pay for it. This is unlike the supermarket where if supermarket offers a deal on bananas, or anything else, they are the one who are paying for it.

A better analogy might be to imagine that every person who is married gets a stipend from the government of £2000 per year to “promote” marriage (£4000 per couple). This stipend is paid for by a tax on everyone of £1000. Now suppose that a movement arises that everyone should be “promoted” - not just married people. Therefore the government changes the law and gives everyone £2000 per year. Not surprisingly, this stipend is paid for by a tax of £2000 on everyone. This, of course, is silly because the result is the same as if no stipend were given in the first place. So the effect is the same as stopping the societal promotion of marriage, which was my point.

Another example might be in first form school where the teacher gives out a gold star to the students who do the best on their homework. The teacher is promoting good work on the part of the students. But suppose the teacher changed the rules and decided to give everyone a gold star, whether they turned in their homework or not. The result would be that much of the incentive to work hard for the gold star would be removed, since the reward has been so devalued.

So any purpose for which these “promotions” are given would be ignored unless the promotion is given only to the ones that were acting in accord with that purpose.

 

[SMGS127]

The difference is that unlike the supermarket, the state is us. Whatever the state does, we all pay for it. This is unlike the supermarket where if supermarket offers a deal on bananas, or anything else, they are the one who are paying for it.

A better analogy might be to imagine that every person who is married gets a stipend from the government of £2000 per year to “promote” marriage (£4000 per couple). This stipend is paid for by a tax on everyone of £1000. Now suppose that a movement arises that everyone should be “promoted” - not just married people. Therefore the government changes the law and gives everyone £2000 per year. Not surprisingly, this stipend is paid for by a tax of £2000 on everyone. This, of course, is silly because the result is the same as if no stipend were given in the first place. So the effect is the same as stopping the societal promotion of marriage, which was my point.

Another example might be in first form school where the teacher gives out a gold star to the students who do the best on their homework. The teacher is promoting good work on the part of the students. But suppose the teacher changed the rules and decided to give everyone a gold star, whether they turned in their homework or not. The result would be that much of the incentive to work hard for the gold star would be removed, since the reward has been so devalued.

So any purpose for which these “promotions” are given would be ignored unless the promotion is given only to the ones that were acting in accord with that purpose.

I don’t think this is a great analogy Leaf, no offense.

Your analogy presupposes that the alternative option can be taken by and is an acceptable option for every person. For example, the alternative option in the gold star example is to do nothing. The alternative option in the tax case is to do nothing. By analogizing it this way, you are suggesting that straight people would enter into a gay marriage as an easier way of obtaining benefits. I would argue that entering into a gay marriage would necessarily stigmatize someone in our society in a manner a straight person would be unwilling to face just for some benefits, especially when he could similarly obtain those benefits through a fake heterosexual “marriage.” Not to mention almost none of the marital benefits are financial – legal and medical benefits would have no relevance in this case.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t think this is a great analogy Leaf, no offense.

Your analogy presupposes that the alternative option can be taken by and is an acceptable option for every person. For example, the alternative option in the gold star example is to do nothing. The alternative option in the tax case is to do nothing. By analogizing it this way, you are suggesting that straight people would enter into a gay marriage as an easier way of obtaining benefits.

No, I am not suggesting that. I am just saying that the wider a benefit is given, the less incentivising power it has. It is small step from granting marriage benefits to same-sex couples to granting marriage benefits to any couple, or any single person, for that matter. When faced with the fact of a society benefit without an adequate societal justification, the tendency would be to “be fair” and grant that benefit to everyone. That devaluing of the marriage benefit has already happened in employee spousal benefits (which had nothing to do with same-sex marriage). It used to be that companies offered health insurance coverage for the wife and kids at no extra cost to the employee. Now it is an option that costs something, so the differential between married and single has been reduced. Now in this case that was probably the right thing to do, because companies should not be singled out as the ones burdened with providing this societal benefit. But something like this is bound to happen if a societal benefit is in place and the people do not sense that this benefit is socially justified, as in supporting the fundamental building block of human society.

Not to mention almost none of the marital benefits are financial – legal and medical benefits would have no relevance in this case.

Some of those benefits cost nothing to the rest of society, and a good case could be made for extending those benefits to all reasonable groupings. However some of them do cost something - financially and in terms of non-financial benefits. For example - adoption. To the extent that adoption is open to all couples, or even individuals, the opportunity to adopt for traditionally married couples is diminished. That is certainly a cost that traditionally married couples who cannot conceive will feel.

 

[LisaA]

You’re missing the point. The state gives special treatment to married couples because marriage, by it’s nature, tends towards not only creating kids, but providing them the environment they need to thrive. **Hetero couples CAN decide to never have children, but it generally requires them to make special efforts to defeat the nature of the relationship (contraception, sterilization, abortion, etc.). Gay couples CAN acquire kids, but that too requires them to first defeat the nature of their relationship.**We live in a society that no longer believes in the value of innate nature and worships the idol of will, but that’s a lie. In fact, it’s the original sin! (Choosing will over teleological nature).

By your argument, hetero, single friends who decide to invest in a property together had better get married, eh? Absurd. Marriage is more than simply a shared life. It is a literally life-giving relationship by it’s nature that is different than other sorts of relationships.

Well said! Interesting how human nature is ignored for purposes of fabricating “rights.” The effort taken to defeat human nature would be better spent understanding and maximizing its gifts rather than fighting them.

Natural marriage accepts, promotes and advances the quality of both the people themselves and society in general. I love how our faith is truth, spoken and lived.

 

[LisaA]

This is completely blatantly false, and it flies in the face of the fact that the Church’s own report on the subject, the John Jay Report, explicitly states that there was no correlation between homosexuals and abuse in the Church.

SMGS you have repeated this numerous times but it simply is not a credible statement. I understand your personal interest but I think you are engaged in parsing the words and hair splitting. That a priest may experience SSA does not make him predatory necessarily. Just as a heterosexual priest may be attracted to a female but that doesn’t mean he will rape her. The sexual orientation isn’t de facto the cause but the disordered thinking and mentality of these predatory men. So the “blame” is shifted from his same sex attraction to another pathology…being predatory, taking advantage of those under your control for sexual gratification. The reality is that when over 80% of the victims were young MALES, you cannot ignore that the predatory priests were homosexuals.

As to the issue being discussed, civil homosexual marriage, it too flies in the face of logic unless we are willing to make the term marriage absoutely meaningless…which may well be the objective. Allowing two (or three or four or ???) people who are presumably engaged in some sort of sexual activity to call themselves married by virtue of the fact they are having non-procreative sex is basing what has always been the building block of society upon a behavior pattern rather than what was intended by nature to help create a continuing, stable and prosperous society.That they want the state to recognize their sex lives as somehow equivalent to male/female Natural Marriage is mystifying. There is nothing unique about these relationships…they can include males or females, the sexual activity is not as our bodies were designed so they must mimic natural sexual activity but again, nothing unique about what they are doing. There seems to be an endless variety of tools, toys and techniques…none of which will ever produce a child. “Marriage” means nothing because it has become relative to the activities of the participants.

 

[LisaA]

Some of those benefits cost nothing to the rest of society, and a good case could be made for extending those benefits to all reasonable groupings. However some of them do cost something - financially and in terms of non-financial benefits. For example - adoption. To the extent that adoption is open to all couples, or even individuals, the opportunity to adopt for traditionally married couples is diminished. That is certainly a cost that traditionally married couples who cannot conceive will feel.

This is a very good point because with SSM and in fact opening up adoptions to singles or other non-traditional family strucutres, the focus goes from the best interest of the CHILD to being “fair” to all potential adoptive parents. Is there ANY question that a child does best in a two parent, married household? The statistics of same sex parenting are obviously subject to question but just as a matter of common sense, why would someone think a child raised without a mommy or a daddy would be better off? The statistics of single parenting are legion and none of them very good…children raised without a father in the home are far more likely to go off the rails in numerous ways. That is well established. Although the reverse is less likely, I do wonder at the ability of two males to explain to a young girl about the changes in her body, her first period, her development into a woman. I don’t know about the rest of you ladies but the idea I would talk to my father about such matters as a 13 year old tells me that this isn’t a good situation either.

Further when the emphasis goes from the best situation for the child to the potential parents selfish desires, who suffers? The parents? No, the child. This emphasis on “equivalence” for all structures has taken such well known adoption organiations such as Catholic Charities out of the opportunity to help find the best situation for the CHILD. And frankly I have the same opinion of giving singles the same opportunity as gay/Lesbian couples. Our society makes great claims about caring for children but we are basically now pandering to selfish adult desires and some perverted sense of “fairness” that exceeds rational thinking. Gay marriage will only increase the focus upon adult interests…we have to be “fair” after all because Joe and Bob are “married” and thus are just the same as Sue and Bill…

 

[DrTaffy]

It seems to me that any promotion of evil involves a neglect of one’s duty to promote the good.

But you have not shown that same sex marriage is objectively evil.

Therefore, if one promotes homosexual unions, one is using up energy that should be spent in the service of good, including the promotion of marriage. What do you think of that argument?

What ‘energy’ of required of you to permit same sex marriage? If anything the Catholic Church has been using significant energy and funds to force your beliefs on same sex marriage onto people who do not share those beliefs. Not only is this the opposite of what you refer to, but if you are justified in doing this even in the very intimate aspect of an individual’s marital life, why should I feel any compunction in forcing my subjective beliefs on you in every single aspect of your life?

 

[DrTaffy]

The state has every reason to promote traditional marriage and discourage homosexual relationships because the state depends on traditional marriage to maintain itself…future generations.

(emphasis added)

Ah - finally the truth. This is about discouraging homosexual relationships, not the conceiving of or even the individual good of children. After all, homosexual couples do both conceive and raise children, and studies show that these children do at least as well as those of heterosexual children.

Given this, why (other than your personal prejudice) should the state “discourage homosexual relationships”?

When the state legitimizes homosexual unions it is essentially promoting homosexual behavior. We know that spreads disease. The state is thus failing in it obligation to protect the public health.

Some homosexual behaviour spreads disease (as does some heterosexual behaviour) - but this does not justify your assertion that legalising homosexual marriage spreads disease. Just as the fact that some mammals are cats does not justify the assertion that a dog is a cat. You have been asked several times to explain how same sex marriage spreads disease and have yet to answer.

Legalising gay marriage reduces the spread of disease.

 

[DrTaffy]

A better analogy might be to imagine that every person who is married gets a stipend from the government of £2000 per year to “promote” marriage (£4000 per couple).
…]
Now suppose that a movement arises that everyone should be “promoted” - not just married people.

This is not the same at all.

Noone has seriously suggested that everyone should get the ‘benefits’ of being married. I don’t even see what that would mean. Everyone has the right to 50% of everyone else’s income? Noone should be forced to testify against anyone else? Everyone should have a right to a green card? Sleeping with anyone would be adultery? Seriously?

While it is true that if every single product in the supermarket were ‘BOGOF’ that would arguably be the same as no promotion at all, that does not justify the assertion that if two different products are ‘BOGOF’ that that would per se amount to no promotion at all.

So giving married same sex couples the same legal recogntion as opposite sex ones does not mean that same sex marriage is not being ‘promoted’. It is. You are just not being allowed to insist that the state discriminate against homosexuals to satisfy your personal prejudices.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

(emphasis added)

Ah - finally the truth. This is about discouraging homosexual relationships, not the conceiving of or even the individual good of children.

This is about discouraging homosexual relationships…as well it should be.

The bearing and raising of children is another subject.

After all, homosexual couples do both conceive and raise children, and studies show that these children do at least as well as those of heterosexual children.

There are many studies showing just the opposite.

Given this, why (other than your personal prejudice) should the state “discourage homosexual relationships”?

Answered below.

Some homosexual behaviour spreads disease (as does some heterosexual behaviour) - but this does not justify your assertion that legalising homosexual marriage spreads disease. Just as the fact that some mammals are cats does not justify the assertion that a dog is a cat. You have been asked several times to explain how same sex marriage spreads disease and have yet to answer.

We have been over this before. You refuse to accept crystal clear FACTS.

Legalising gay marriage reduces the spread of disease.

That is not proven. I debunked your flawed study at least twice on other threads.

You have failed to answer why the spread of disease amongst gay men has not diminished, (and continues to climb) given that over half of the States in the U.S. allow gays to call their relationships a marriage???

 

[LisaA]

This is not the same at all.

So giving married same sex couples the same legal recogntion as opposite sex ones does not mean that same sex marriage is not being ‘promoted’. It is. You are just not being allowed to insist that the state discriminate against homosexuals to satisfy your personal prejudices.

Like many who advocate for SSM, you do a good job of twisting words into pretzels in an attempt to obfuscate the facts. The word “discriminate” is often used as a cudgel to shut down conversation but it is in fact simply a verb “to treat differently.” We discriminate in many ways that are beneficial to ourselves and to society. If I saw an elderly person or a pregnant woman on the bus I would discriminate by offering them my seat whereas I wouldn’t do the same for some strapping young man. That you claim the state discriminates against homosexuals is completely wrong. There is no state Gay ID card. If someone goes into a state office, no one asks them what sex they find attractive. The state DOES dictate what are legal parties to various contracts including marriage. The state in fact discriminates against people who are too young, mentally incapable of contracting, or other parameters. Being gay is not a limitation. However in some states only one man and one woman can contract a marriage. Not two or three, not two of each, not two who are already married to someone else. Yes discrimination but not discrimination based on sex practices, but discrimination based on biology. Men are not the same as women.

That gay activists demand their non-procreative and unhealthy sex lives be considered equivalent to Natural Marriage is patently ridiculous. Society has no interest in your sex life Dr Taffy. Where you dip your wick is inconsequential to everyone but you and your other participant(s). Society has an interest in protecting its citizens and marriage was designed to encourage families that are far better environments for children to be born than any other structure. Your gay “marriage” will never result in children so what interest does the state have in your relationship? None.

As to certain benefits being more accessible to married persons (those joint tax rates are simply marvelous!) in reality virtually all of them are available through contractual arrangements. Further when states in an effort to accommodate these demands from gays and Lesbians enacted statutes providing IDENTICAL benefits for their domestic partnerships, that was not enough. They want it called “marriage” because they think we will therefore accept their relationships as equivalent and equally valuable to society and the state.