Defend traditional marriage... against what?

[TheTrueCentrist]

Haha not allowed to? Please do explain.

As far as I know, there is no religious prohibition against a man sharing his income with another man, two women agreeing to make medical decisions for one another. Therefore, I can’t imagine there being much religious objection to the government offering these arrangements to any couple, even as a marriage-like package deal. The religious objections primarily concern sexual intercourse, something which the government has very little authority to regulate. Since the government can’t and won’t make a proclamation about the morality of any consensual sexual intercourse, it therefore cannot restrict its policies on that basis.

 

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist View Post
As far as I know, there is no religious prohibition against a man sharing his income with another man, two women agreeing to make medical decisions for one another. Therefore, I can’t imagine there being much religious objection to the government offering these arrangements to any couple, even as a marriage-like package deal. The religious objections primarily concern sexual intercourse, something which the government has very little authority to regulate. Since the government can’t and won’t make a proclamation about the morality of any consensual sexual intercourse, it therefore cannot restrict its policies on that basis.

Cohabiting couples are already able to make many of these things possible without a marriage license. This has already been discussed in other threads. If the law was so unfair and unmarried couples were at such a disadvantage don’t you think some of those cohabiting heterosexual couples would have thrown a fit by now?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Cohabiting couples are already able to make many of these things possible without a marriage license. This has already been discussed in other threads. If the law was so unfair and unmarried couples were at such a disadvantage don’t you think some of those cohabiting heterosexual couples would have thrown a fit by now?

No. The arrangements that marriage contains require a level of commitment that not all cohabiting couples wish to take on.

You seem to be asking “why wouldn’t every pair of people that live together seek and get the protections present in marriage?” and the answer is exactly this. Not every pair of people living together wants to agree to give or take on these responsibilities:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

 

[Nate13]

No. The arrangements that marriage contains require a level of commitment that not all cohabiting couples wish to take on.

You seem to be asking “why wouldn’t every pair of people that live together seek and get the protections present in marriage?” and the answer is exactly this. Not every pair of people living together wants to agree to give or take on these responsibilities:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

No I’m referring to couples that make a verbal commitment to be together for life as far as they know without going through and actually getting married. There are already provisions that allow for these couples to fill out the necessary paperwork to achieve most of the privileges married couples get.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

No I’m referring to couples that make a verbal commitment to be together for life as far as they know without going through and actually getting married. There are already provisions that allow for these couples to fill out the necessary paperwork to achieve most of the privileges married couples get.

I don’t know why these people are relevant. If they don’t want to get married for whatever reason, that is up to them. Gay people want all the privileges married couples get, and they don’t want to have to apply for each benefit separately.

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

This is the point though. Traditional marriage has been eroded so much we can’t see how it is different from homosexual marriage anymore. There is really not much left to prevent except tipping all the way over the precipice. As other posters mentioned the fight against homosexual marriage is not the beginning of the fight to defend marriage. Its the fight that occurs when we are on our last leg.

Are you honestly telling me that you can’t tell the difference in your own family? In your own home? Of course you aren’t. What it seems like you’re saying is, “I want to codify my theology into law.” And I can accept that want as a perfectly valid point of view. But the bigger point is this:

So we pass a bunch of laws today that are in line wth Catholic theology because they are in line with that theology and because we have support in Congress, or the legislature. Great; no problem, right? Wrong.

Fast forward to a couple of election cycles from now, and we’ve woken up a bunch of voters who don’t like the Church, and they want those laws overturned; if they can get the majority, they can do it. Oh, well, when the polls swing our way again, we can get it all back. But, wait! More than that, they want to make sure there is no risk of Catholics coming back into power, so they ban Catholic activity, such as banning the Eucharist. And all of a sudden, we’re in the age of Diocletian again. And we won’t have any legal protections for freedom to worship, because we sent that argument out the window when we said that our faith was good enough to make into law. And so, the only way to protect ourselves is to make sure that we protect the religious freedom and pluralism of all, even if we don’t agree with the choices that are made.

It occurs to me as I write this that probably the biggest problem is language. Many of my friends–who are a great deal more conservative, both socially and theologically, than I am–tell me that they really don’t see an issue with civil unions…but that to have “gay marriage” in this country is something that bothers them. Maybe even that would be a bridge too far for you, but it has stared me thinking that all government recognitions of two people ought to be called “civil unions;” gay, straight, Catholic, athiest, hindu…all of them. Because, when a man and a woman enter into a covenant with God to establish a new family as they do in a marriage, does God require of them to file a joint tax return? No. So why on earth would it offend the Christian sensibilities of our marriages if the gov’t were to place it’s seal on anyone’s union; again, be it Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Shinto, or agnostic. Draw that line for me. In fact, the very notion that we seem to insist so strongly on having a gov’t seal on our own Catholic marriages–one that is already sealed by a covenant with God–would seem to imply that God’s sacraments are not enough for us, that we need to have a notarized form to make it “official.”

We cannot enforce our Christian faith upon the world; in addition to being illiegal, it’s impractical, immoral, and un-Christian. God has always offered mankind a choice: to live in His covenants, or to turn away from them. To attempt to go beyond that, in order to *force *or coerce that choice…that is to have hubris; hubris in thinking that we can get it done better than Him. Such hubris would be rewarded, not only in failing at our goal of spreading Christ’s messge of life and love, but doing so to the tune of opening us up to persecution for absolutley no need. Yes, our faith is a trial, and one that may lead to persecution and even maryrdom. But to purposfully ask for those trials is simply an ego-stroking suicide.

 

[Nate13]

Are you honestly telling me that you can’t tell the difference in your own family? In your own home? Of course you aren’t. What it seems like you’re saying is, “I want to codify my theology into law.” And I can accept that want as a perfectly valid point of view. But the bigger point is this:

So we pass a bunch of laws today that are in line wth Catholic theology because they are in line with that theology and because we have support in Congress, or the legislature. Great; no problem, right? Wrong.

I want to codify what is natural law, which has been done in past democratic societies within this century by the way. Our own country was started with the express intent that the government would protect peoples God given natural rights. I also want to take into account things that are a threat to society. When I referenced “traditional marriage” I was speaking about it as the government sees it. Right now with current laws it means very little. Sex has been disassociated with making babies. The courts have said as much when they argued that people who used contraception had done so with the expectation that they would be able to get an abortion if their contraception failed. In other words you have a RIGHT to have sex without having to worry about having a kid. Do you not see how damaging this is? Homosexuality is being accepted because of this mentality. This is what Pro-choice activists are arguing for. The RIGHT to have sex without having to worry about a baby. In all reality they are arguing that nature discriminates against women.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

In other words you have a RIGHT to have sex without having to worry about having a kid. Do you not see how damaging this is? Homosexuality is being accepted because of this mentality. This is what Pro-choice activists are arguing for. The RIGHT to have sex without having to worry about a baby.

We have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People are free to have sex with other consenting individuals. They are also free to use contraception or have homosexual intercourse. To restrict those is to deny certain individuals liberty and pursuit of happiness. Unless you can more specifically define and quantify what you mean by “how damaging this is” your argument is a religious one, i.e. not one that the government can employ to regulate marriage.

 

[Nate13]

We have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People are free to have sex with other consenting individuals. They are also free to use contraception or have homosexual intercourse. To restrict those is to deny certain individuals liberty and pursuit of happiness. Unless you can more specifically define and quantify what you mean by “how damaging this is” your argument is a religious one, i.e. not one that the government can employ to regulate marriage.

Then why won’t doctor’s prescribe steroids for adults let alone kids who want to build muscles, but will prescribe a birth control pill to a 13 year old girl in a heartbeat? Is not that doctor getting in the way of what an adult male might consider his right to the pursuit of happiness and liberty? Why can’t the father of a 13 year old boy consent to allowing his son to use steroids and get that prescribed to him?

Contraception impinges on natural law.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Then why won’t doctor’s prescribe steroids for adults let alone kids who want to build muscles, but will prescribe a birth control pill to a 13 year old girl in a heartbeat? Is not that doctor getting in the way of what an adult male might consider his right to the pursuit of happiness and liberty? Why can’t the father of a 13 year old boy consent to allowing his son to use steroids and get that prescribed to him?

Contraception impinges on natural law.

We’re not talking about the rights of kids, which are different from those of adults. Moreover, contraception is a distraction topic. Steroids are only prescribed in case of medical necessity because they may be habit forming and side effects are both common and serious. Birth control is dispensed to children when the rewards are judged to outweigh the risks.

 

[Nate13]

We’re not talking about the rights of kids, which are different from those of adults. Moreover, contraception is a distraction topic. Steroids are only prescribed in case of medical necessity because they may be habit forming and side effects are both common and serious. Birth control is dispensed to children when the rewards are judged to outweigh the risks.

Yes but by your argument no authority should be able to make that decision for the person. Why don’t we just educate the person about the risks and let them do as the want? That seems to be the thinking with birth control. I believe doctors are right not to prescribe some steroids and I believe they should also not prescribe the pill to anybody who walks in. In many cases with younger kids your giving them the means by which to go out and engage in incredibly dangerous activities. I’m not just talking about STD’s either. There are incredibly damaging and lasting mental affects especially for women who have one night stands with guys. I see a double standard here. Not allowing someone to have contraceptives to use so they can have sex is considered an invasion of privacy, but not allowing someone to make a calculated decision to use steroids to build muscles is not? The only difference is how the public views them. This is gross negligence on the doctor’s part as well.

And yes we are talking about the rights of kids here because currently with parental permission a kid can get a prescription for the pill for the sole reason of preventing pregnancy regardless of all the potential side affects, number 1 of which is possible death for a newly conceived life.

 

[edwest2]

Are you honestly telling me that you can’t tell the difference in your own family? In your own home? Of course you aren’t. What it seems like you’re saying is, “I want to codify my theology into law.” And I can accept that want as a perfectly valid point of view. But the bigger point is this:

So we pass a bunch of laws today that are in line wth Catholic theology because they are in line with that theology and because we have support in Congress, or the legislature. Great; no problem, right? Wrong.

Fast forward to a couple of election cycles from now, and we’ve woken up a bunch of voters who don’t like the Church, and they want those laws overturned; if they can get the majority, they can do it. Oh, well, when the polls swing our way again, we can get it all back. But, wait! More than that, they want to make sure there is no risk of Catholics coming back into power, so they ban Catholic activity, such as banning the Eucharist. And all of a sudden, we’re in the age of Diocletian again. And we won’t have any legal protections for freedom to worship, because we sent that argument out the window when we said that our faith was good enough to make into law. And so, the only way to protect ourselves is to make sure that we protect the religious freedom and pluralism of all, even if we don’t agree with the choices that are made.

It occurs to me as I write this that probably the biggest problem is language. Many of my friends–who are a great deal more conservative, both socially and theologically, than I am–tell me that they really don’t see an issue with civil unions…but that to have “gay marriage” in this country is something that bothers them. Maybe even that would be a bridge too far for you, but it has stared me thinking that all government recognitions of two people ought to be called “civil unions;” gay, straight, Catholic, athiest, hindu…all of them. Because, when a man and a woman enter into a covenant with God to establish a new family as they do in a marriage, does God require of them to file a joint tax return? No. So why on earth would it offend the Christian sensibilities of our marriages if the gov’t were to place it’s seal on anyone’s union; again, be it Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Shinto, or agnostic. Draw that line for me. In fact, the very notion that we seem to insist so strongly on having a gov’t seal on our own Catholic marriages–one that is already sealed by a covenant with God–would seem to imply that God’s sacraments are not enough for us, that we need to have a notarized form to make it “official.”

We cannot enforce our Christian faith upon the world; in addition to being illiegal, it’s impractical, immoral, and un-Christian. God has always offered mankind a choice: to live in His covenants, or to turn away from them. To attempt to go beyond that, in order to *force *or coerce that choice…that is to have hubris; hubris in thinking that we can get it done better than Him. Such hubris would be rewarded, not only in failing at our goal of spreading Christ’s messge of life and love, but doing so to the tune of opening us up to persecution for absolutley no need. Yes, our faith is a trial, and one that may lead to persecution and even maryrdom. But to purposfully ask for those trials is simply an ego-stroking suicide.

The Church proposes but does not impose. And God will not force you to love Him either. A priest will not be pounding on your door on Monday if you miss Church on Sunday.

Your comment about marriage as sacrament and the State’s involvement involves an assumption. From eHow:

“Marriage licenses legalize and solidify the union between a couple. Most states will not provide marriage licensing in the case of proxy marriages, marriage between cousins, common-law marriages or same-sex marriages. A license will only be given to a couple if both parties are over the age of 18, or if both have obtained parental consent to marry if age 16 or 17. Some states may require blood testing or physical testing prior to providing a marriage license, to ensure that both parties are unrelated. The strict marriage license rules ensure that marriage is legal, based upon state laws, and thereby recognized by the state and federal government. Filing a marriage license creates an important legal document, which will become part of the public record. Legally, this allows spouses to receive certain government and employer benefits.” I think recording a marriage with the state in an official capacity prevents any two people from claiming they are married when they are not. It’s on your tax form: Married - filing jointly.

This is what gay marriage proponents claim they want: all of the benefits provided by the State for heterosexual married couples.

In all the states where same-sex marriage appeared on the ballot, it was rejected.

I suggest you read why the Church considers same-sex marriage disordered. Either the Church is right or it is wrong. I side with the Church’s explanation.

All laws prohibit or limit certain behaviors or actions. Should only non-religious people vote?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

The Church proposes but does not impose. And God will not force you to love Him either. A priest will not be pounding on your door on Monday if you miss Church on Sunday.

Your comment about marriage as sacrament and the State’s involvement involves an assumption. From eHow:

“Marriage licenses legalize and solidify the union between a couple. Most states will not provide marriage licensing in the case of proxy marriages, marriage between cousins, common-law marriages or same-sex marriages. A license will only be given to a couple if both parties are over the age of 18, or if both have obtained parental consent to marry if age 16 or 17. Some states may require blood testing or physical testing prior to providing a marriage license, to ensure that both parties are unrelated. The strict marriage license rules ensure that marriage is legal, based upon state laws, and thereby recognized by the state and federal government. Filing a marriage license creates an important legal document, which will become part of the public record. Legally, this allows spouses to receive certain government and employer benefits.” I think recording a marriage with the state in an official capacity prevents any two people from claiming they are married when they are not. It’s on your tax form: Married - filing jointly.

This is what gay marriage proponents claim they want: all of the benefits provided by the State for heterosexual married couples.

In all the states where same-sex marriage appeared on the ballot, it was rejected.

I suggest you read why the Church considers same-sex marriage disordered. Either the Church is right or it is wrong. I side with the Church’s explanation.

All laws prohibit or limit certain behaviors or actions. Should only non-religious people vote?

Peace,
Ed

I’m not saying that only non-religious people should vote. What I’m saying is, our laws have to govern people of all faiths, as well as people with no faith. If we are to elevate one religious doctrine now to a place where its moral code is forced on those who don’t subscribe to it, we have eliminated religious freedom, freedom of speech…all freedom in this country. There isn’t a slippery slope; there is a cliff edge.

By the way, if marriage is purely a religious term, then why is it in a secular government? I understand what the Church teaches about it. That’s not the problem; the problem is that the Constitution of the United States porhibits religious activity in any form connected to government. Setting aside the First Amendment implications, the Fourteenth Amendment sets out the following, “Nor shall any State…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Ballot measures cannot overturn this most fundamental human right, the right of self determination, without regard to any moral code, much less to a moral code that not everyone subscribes to anyway. Freedom of choice doesn’t become a minority value just because the majority doesn’t like the minority’s choice. Majority opinion is wrong–actually a lot of the time; not to put too fine a point on it, but Jim Crow laws were passed by popular demand, and they are simply wrong.

Yes, our laws limit our choices, but we’re not talking about crystal meth or assault weapons; we’re talking about taxes and powers of attorney. And so I ask again,

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Yes but by your argument no authority should be able to make that decision for the person. Why don’t we just educate the person about the risks and let them do as the want?

Because if they make the wrong decision, it may harm other people. We outlaw things when they are harmful. Medicines have risks and rewards that most people are not qualified to assess, which is why we restrict the decision to medical professionals.

I believe they should also not prescribe the pill to anybody who walks in.

Some people believe kids shouldn’t be allowed to eat pork, but the government won’t outlaw it unless they can prove that it is harmful.

In many cases with younger kids your giving them the means by which to go out and engage in incredibly dangerous activities. I’m not just talking about STD’s either. There are incredibly damaging and lasting mental affects especially for women who have one night stands with guys.

[citation needed]
You can’t just make those sorts of assertions without evidence. What if I decided Catholicism was harmful to society for some reason, could I just ban it? No, I would be expected to provide evidence of that harm.

And yes we are talking about the rights of kids here because currently with parental permission a kid can get a prescription for the pill for the sole reason of preventing pregnancy regardless of all the potential side affects, number 1 of which is possible death for a newly conceived life.

No, we are talking about gay and traditional marriages. The pill is a red herring you are using because you can neither provide evidence that gay marriage is harmful nor can you counter the argument that we need evidence to outlaw the practice.

 

[Nate13]

Because if they make the wrong decision, it may harm other people. We outlaw things when they are harmful. Medicines have risks and rewards that most people are not qualified to assess, which is why we restrict the decision to medical professionals.

Explain to me how “convenience” and the ability to have sex 33% more of the time is worth the enhanced risk of many forms of cancer, possibly lower libido, and of course the possibility of killing someone. Some people have better reasons for taking the pill than these, but that is the minority. The decision to give people the pill is not based on what is best for the woman taking it, its based on what the government thinks is best for society.

You could go into a doctor and tell him you wanted steroids to build muscle because you were a bounty hunter tracking Osama bin Laden and that is not going to get it for you. I’m sorry but this is a double standard when looked at objectively.

[citation needed]
You can’t just make those sorts of assertions without evidence. What if I decided Catholicism was harmful to society for some reason, could I just ban it? No, I would be expected to provide evidence of that harm.

All the sites I want to link have racy images. I assume you can google and find the studies for yourself if you care. I’d also base it on experience while in college not too long ago.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Explain to me how “convenience” and the ability to have sex 33% more of the time is worth the enhanced risk of many forms of cancer, possibly lower libido, and of course the possibility of killing someone. Some people have better reasons for taking the pill than these, but that is the minority. The decision to give people the pill is not based on what is best for the woman taking it, its based on what the government thinks is best for society.

You could go into a doctor and tell him you wanted steroids to build muscle because you were a bounty hunter tracking Osama bin Laden and that is not going to get it for you. I’m sorry but this is a double standard when looked at objectively.

Maybe steroids should be available on demand. I don’t know enough about the rationale for their current classification to say.

Please don’t resort to the same fear mongering that too many religious zealots use to try to get people to oppose the pill. Did you realize there are also positive side effects, such as reductions in the risks for other types of cancer? It is important to note that most birth control is only available with a prescription as well, this allows a doctor and/or pharmacist to explain the risks to people. Unfortunately, the side effects are not as common or severe as religious zealots would like, and women are advised accordingly.

All the sites I want to link have racy images. I assume you can google and find the studies for yourself if you care. I’d also base it on experience while in college not too long ago.

I have looked up the studies and found no reputable source that suggests gay marriage is harmful.

 

[Nate13]

Maybe steroids should be available on demand. I don’t know enough about the rationale for their current classification to say.

Please don’t resort to the same fear mongering that too many religious zealots use to try to get people to oppose the pill. Did you realize there are also positive side effects, such as reductions in the risks for other types of cancer? It is important to note that most birth control is only available with a prescription as well, this allows a doctor and/or pharmacist to explain the risks to people. Unfortunately, the side effects are not as common or severe as religious zealots would like, and women are advised accordingly.

I have looked up the studies and found no reputable source that suggests gay marriage is harmful.

I find your trust of doctors to a point bordering on infallibility remarkable. If a lot of doctor’s get together and say something is true it must be true right? Obviously whatever a majority of the medical field says is true should be taken as truth without debate. The “shut-up because the Church says so” argument doesn’t work when trying to prove to someone that something the Church teaches is true, and it definitely doesn’t work when it comes to medical science. With your stance on homosexuality you should realize this considering at one point homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder.

Also go back and look. I was referring to studies that showed casual sex could be especially harmful to women. A doctor isn’t allowed to take these things into consideration though because that would be an “invasion of privacy”, but restricting steroids is not.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

With your stance on homosexuality you should realize this considering at one point homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder.

An assessment borne out of prejudice and not solid science. More rational minds have prevailed, which is why it is no longer classified as a psychological disorder.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The “shut-up because the Church says so” argument doesn’t work when trying to prove to someone that something the Church teaches is true, and it definitely doesn’t work when it comes to medical science.

You misunderstand the role of the church and science. Science is a systematic method for asking and answering questions about the world around us. If we want to know if homosexuality causes problem x, then the correct approach is to use science to find the answer. Religion does not allow tests, so there is no way to validate a religion’s (non-scientific) claims. This is why science is generally convincing, and religion is not. You certainly may reject science, but in so doing you render yourself incapable of answering questions about the physical world.

Also go back and look. I was referring to studies that showed casual sex could be especially harmful to women. A doctor isn’t allowed to take these things into consideration though because that would be an “invasion of privacy”, but restricting steroids is not.

Consensual sex, casual or otherwise, is not regulated by the government. In a sufficiently free society, people are free to harm themselves, so long as it doesn’t impose harm on others.

 

[Nate13]

An assessment borne out of prejudice and not solid science. More rational minds have prevailed, which is why it is no longer classified as a psychological disorder.

Easy to say after the fact. The arrogance is incredible. You and I both know its very likely 100 years from now everything we know will have been turned upside down on itself, and people will be talking about how stupid we were and many obvious things we missed.

Also since you realize the effect that inbuilt prejudices can have on the decisions that are made, you don’t think by chance that the global warming proponents might have something to do with pushing contraceptives so we have less kids do you? Its not hard to justify the risks of contraceptives when you believe your saving the world by doing so.

Consensual sex, casual or otherwise, is not regulated by the government. In a sufficiently free society, people are free to harm themselves, so long as it doesn’t impose harm on others.

Explain how steroids affect other people? Your right people do have the ability to do what they want as long as it doesn’t affect others, but doctors have their own standards to go by. While we can’t regulate sex we can regulate the contraceptives we give out to people. If I walked into the doctors office and said “can I have some codeine cough syrup? I really like how it helps knock me out so I can fall asleep.” They would laugh at me and send me home. If you want a contraceptive to go have some casual sex, that of course is absolutely fine.