Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-sex “Marriage”

[Elizabeth502]

1. Children are not mentioned in state law as a condition of marriage. Some may think they are, but state law doesn’t say so, nor does it bar anyone who professes they will not have chldren.
2. The state does have an interest in regulating marriage, and it is free to change those regulations.
3. We all have a right to equal treatment under law. When marriage laws are changed, gays have a right to marry under state law. Before that they don’t.
4. Restrictions on same sex marriage are a function of law. Change the law, and there are no restrictions.

1. I never said that children were “mentioned in the law.” I said that they can be logically inferred from the state of marriage, and law works, among other ways, by common expectations and commonly accepted practice or societal tradition. No, marriage is not barred to those who state that they will not have children, but the assumption that they may have children comes with the territory. What the law will never allow is to create two classes of married people: those entitled to be parents at some time in the future (or those already parents), those not so entitled and/or who state they do not wish to become parents. It comes as a bundle, and “statements of intent” would never be a guarantee. This is why the issue of gay “marriage” will never be just about a couple’s private relationship. Marriage has societal implications. It always has. It always will.
2. Because the state is free to change the regulations does not mean that it should change regulations. It’s free to allow bigamy and legalized incest, but it’s not about to write those into law, either, just because it “can.”
3. Actually, this is another misunderstanding. There are differentiation of rights under the law, and clearly you have a poor understanding of legimate categories of differentiation of rights. There is no such thing as equal treatment of the law for all categories of people for all circumstances. We create hierarchies of rights all the time in this country, based on greater goods.
4. You seem to assume that change is always good; restriction is always bad. I know that’s the liberal mantra, but in point of fact, radical, sudden change with enormous consequence is sometimes extremely risky and a very bad idea.

It will also be very, very helpful if some people newer to the debate were to review some of the arguments & lengthy discussions on this topic that were held on CAF within just the last several months. Search ‘gay marriage’ and you’ll find exhaustive discussions which shouldn’t need to be repeated here, because most of the key aspects of the topic have been thoroughly aired.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Homosexuals do not have a right to marry. They clearly are acting on an agenda, whether as useful idiots or other, we do not know, nor is it important.

It is their actions that are wrong.

God’s law and His word are not subject to the whims of the relativists, but they themselves will be subject to His justice, and, I hope, his mercy.

Those of you who content yourselves to argue that there are no absolutes—I hope your arguments will hold sway when you come face-to-face with your Maker.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Homosexuals do not have a right to marry. They clearly are acting on an agenda, whether as useful idiots or other, we do not know, nor is it important.

You’re absolutely right that homosexuals do not have a right to marry. You would be equally right to say that heterosexuals do not have a right to marry. From the religious point of view, sacraments are not rights, nor are they privileges in the sense of being reserved to some elite–they are a gift.

From the state point of view, however, the question of who can get “married” is a question of who gets to enjoy a particular list of rights and responsibilities, which rights and responsibilities have nothing to do with religion. Insofar as the state chooses to grant these rights and responsibilities to one group and not another, it should have a good reason–a good, secular, legal reason–for doing so. Appeals to divine law do not supply that reasoning, unless one lives in a theocracy.

Regarding this homosexual agenda: what is it, exactly? It’s not at all clear to me what this conspiratorial agenda is.

God’s law and His word are not subject to the whims of the relativists, but they themselves will be subject to His justice, and, I hope, his mercy.

You’re right–God’s law is not subject to anyone’s whim. Nor, thankfully, is his love. Moreover, God’s justice is God’s mercy.

Coincidentally, I often find that when people start harping on about God’s Law in this way that what’s actually happening is an attempt to seize and consolidate power–the apocalyptic language of the judgment of God only serves to strengthen the appeal to power. More often than not, such an appeal would be more honestly stated, “I am good because I am on this side of things. You are bad and wrong because you are not on my side of things. I have the satisfaction of knowing that you will be in pain some day for not being part of my in-group.” After all, how else do we conceive of power aside from the degree to which we can inflict pain on others?

Of course, there are other models of power available–Jesus himself gave us the clearest and most potent!–but they often look less spectacular(and therefore less desirable) than imagining our enemies (whether or not they are our enemies–and most of the time, they are not) writhing in pain at the feet of our image of God.

Those of you who content yourselves to argue that there are no absolutes—I hope your arguments will hold sway when you come face-to-face with your Maker.

Who are these people in this thread who have said there are no absolutes? I’ve hinted at the fact that there is no such thing as absolute evil (because absolute evil would be lacking entirely in being and therefore could not be), but it does not follow from this assertion that there are no absolutes. Indeed, the Good is the absolute. Everything else is nothingness or illusion.

Regarding your hope–there is no need to be disingenuous. Can you honestly say that that is your hope, given that your subtextual appeal is to God’s wrath? A rhetorical hope is a particularly useless kind of empty sentiment. It is certainly no substitute for honesty.

Apart from all of that, however, have you given any thought to the gender question posed above?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[buffalo]

Grace & Peace!

You’re absolutely right that homosexuals do not have a right to marry. You would be equally right to say that heterosexuals do not have a right to marry. From the religious point of view, sacraments are not rights, nor are they privileges in the sense of being reserved to some elite–they are a gift.

From the state point of view, however, the question of who can get “married” is a question of who gets to enjoy a particular list of rights and responsibilities, which rights and responsibilities have nothing to do with religion. Insofar as the state chooses to grant these rights and responsibilities to one group and not another, it should have a good reason–a good, secular, legal reason–for doing so. Appeals to divine law do not supply that reasoning, unless one lives in a theocracy.

Regarding this homosexual agenda: what is it, exactly? It’s not at all clear to me what this conspiratorial agenda is.

You’re right–God’s law is not subject to anyone’s whim. Nor, thankfully, is his love. Moreover, God’s justice is God’s mercy.

Coincidentally, I often find that when people start harping on about God’s Law in this way that what’s actually happening is an attempt to seize and consolidate power–the apocalyptic language of the judgment of God only serves to strengthen the appeal to power. More often than not, such an appeal would be more honestly stated, “I am good because I am on this side of things. You are bad and wrong because you are not on my side of things. I have the satisfaction of knowing that you will be in pain some day for not being part of my in-group.” After all, how else do we conceive of power aside from the degree to which we can inflict pain on others?

Of course, there are other models of power available–Jesus himself gave us the clearest and most potent!–but they often look less spectacular(and therefore less desirable) than imagining our enemies (whether or not they are our enemies–and most of the time, they are not) writhing in pain at the feet of our image of God.

Who are these people in this thread who have said there are no absolutes? I’ve hinted at the fact that there is no such thing as absolute evil (because absolute evil would be lacking entirely in being and therefore could not be), but it does not follow from this assertion that there are no absolutes. Indeed, the Good is the absolute. Everything else is nothingness or illusion.

Regarding your hope–there is no need to be disingenuous. Can you honestly say that that is your hope, given that your subtextual appeal is to God’s wrath? A rhetorical hope is a particularly useless kind of empty sentiment. It is certainly no substitute for honesty.

Apart from all of that, however, have you given any thought to the gender question posed above?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

Have you read the linked article? All the answers are there.

 

[Other_Eric]

It must be understood that the reason for the individual’s existence is the betterment of the larger community. Those with same-sex attractions cannot contribute in any meaningful way to this end. Their every desire is, in the end, utterly depraved. This is why reparative therapy is so important. By leaving same-sex attractions behind, such individuals become useful and capable of participating in the Communion of Saints.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Have you read the linked article? All the answers are there.

I’ve looked through it. Certainly it is of impressive length, but there was nothing particularly new in it–though I found the early sections on Harry Hay read like a DaVinci Code / Holy Blood, Holy Grail sort of conspiracy book written from the perspective of a Roman legalist/moralist. And that was new.

By the way, what does Property (the P of the TFP) have to do with Family and Tradition, I wonder? It makes me suspicious.

Anyway, I still think the central issue (how we value gender and how gender relates to power) is not dealt with. It’s almost dealt with, but then the whole question seems to be abandoned in a typical (if not by-now-cliche) welter of indignation directed at the sixties.

I think there is a paradox here that will become increasingly difficult for the Roman Church to manage. On the one hand, it has stated that it believes in the fundamental equality between men and women (see Gaudium et Spes). On the other, it appeals to a hierarchical understanding of the relationship between men and women (seeing men as powerful, women as submissive) leading to a subtle affirmation of the old idea that women are incomplete men, or that women have a different nature from men. It is possible to affirm equality (in terms of value and power) and difference (in terms of qualities respectively unique to the sexes). But Rome has succeeded only in affirming difference in order to institutionalize inequality while paying lip service to gender parity. This tension between an assent to fundamental equality and its clinging to a notion of fundamental inequality will most likely explode in two places–the question of women’s ordination, and the question of sexual ethics. We are witnessing the beginnings of that explosion. I don’t imagine that we will actually see the end of it any time soon.

It is clear that underneath it all, Rome still holds to the ancient notions of women being not quite human. But it doesn’t want to admit it, so it speaks of equality. But deep down, it knows that equating two differing hierarchical terms leads to a tension that must be resolved by the destruction or radical disempowerment of one of those terms–or through a process of scapegoating.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[buffalo]

**
What ever happened to reading, writing and arithmetic?

Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools **

Extremely slick propaganda directed at the youngest of children! The videos below are from It’s Elementary, a 78-minute feature film produced by homosexual activists. These are actual scenes from elementary schools in Massachusetts and New York. It’s Elementary is meant to be a training video for homosexual activist teachers across the country. In addition, the film itself has been shown to schoolchildren in public schools in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
This is what is actually going on in more and more elementary schools across America. **Watching this will really affect you! You will not believe what you are seeing. **

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Grace & Peace!

You’re absolutely right that homosexuals do not have a right to marry. You would be equally right to say that heterosexuals do not have a right to marry. From the religious point of view, sacraments are not rights, nor are they privileges in the sense of being reserved to some elite–they are a gift.

From the state point of view, however, the question of who can get “married” is a question of who gets to enjoy a particular list of rights and responsibilities, which rights and responsibilities have nothing to do with religion. Insofar as the state chooses to grant these rights and responsibilities to one group and not another, it should have a good reason–a good, secular, legal reason–for doing so. Appeals to divine law do not supply that reasoning, unless one lives in a theocracy.

Regarding this homosexual agenda: what is it, exactly? It’s not at all clear to me what this conspiratorial agenda is.

You’re right–God’s law is not subject to anyone’s whim. Nor, thankfully, is his love. Moreover, God’s justice is God’s mercy.

Coincidentally, I often find that when people start harping on about God’s Law in this way that what’s actually happening is an attempt to seize and consolidate power–the apocalyptic language of the judgment of God only serves to strengthen the appeal to power. More often than not, such an appeal would be more honestly stated, “I am good because I am on this side of things. You are bad and wrong because you are not on my side of things. I have the satisfaction of knowing that you will be in pain some day for not being part of my in-group.” After all, how else do we conceive of power aside from the degree to which we can inflict pain on others?

Of course, there are other models of power available–Jesus himself gave us the clearest and most potent!–but they often look less spectacular(and therefore less desirable) than imagining our enemies (whether or not they are our enemies–and most of the time, they are not) writhing in pain at the feet of our image of God.

Who are these people in this thread who have said there are no absolutes? I’ve hinted at the fact that there is no such thing as absolute evil (because absolute evil would be lacking entirely in being and therefore could not be), but it does not follow from this assertion that there are no absolutes. Indeed, the Good is the absolute. Everything else is nothingness or illusion.

Regarding your hope–there is no need to be disingenuous. Can you honestly say that that is your hope, given that your subtextual appeal is to God’s wrath? A rhetorical hope is a particularly useless kind of empty sentiment. It is certainly no substitute for honesty.

Apart from all of that, however, have you given any thought to the gender question posed above?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

Homosexual acts are mortal sins. Mortal sins. ALL of them.

What precisely is merciful about encouraging and embracing mortal sin?

Or don’t you think that homosexuals have souls worth saving? Are they just animals, rutting at whim? We heterosexuals have no right to do that either.

Perhaps you ought to stop being disingenuous yourself. My position, as well as the Bible’s, is clear and lucid.

 

[WillieWonka]

1. I never said that children were “mentioned in the law.” I said that they can be logically inferred from the state of marriage, and law works, among other ways, by common expectations and commonly accepted practice or societal tradition. No, marriage is not barred to those who state that they will not have children, but the assumption that they may have children comes with the territory. What the law will never allow is to create two classes of married people: those entitled to be parents at some time in the future (or those already parents), those not so entitled and/or who state they do not wish to become parents. It comes as a bundle, and “statements of intent” would never be a guarantee. This is why the issue of gay “marriage” will never be just about a couple’s private relationship. Marriage has societal implications. It always has. It always will.
2. Because the state is free to change the regulations does not mean that it should change regulations. It’s free to allow bigamy and legalized incest, but it’s not about to write those into law, either, just because it “can.”
3. Actually, this is another misunderstanding. There are differentiation of rights under the law, and clearly you have a poor understanding of legimate categories of differentiation of rights. There is no such thing as equal treatment of the law for all categories of people for all circumstances. We create hierarchies of rights all the time in this country, based on greater goods.
4. You seem to assume that change is always good; restriction is always bad. I know that’s the liberal mantra, but in point of fact, radical, sudden change with enormous consequence is sometimes extremely risky and a very bad idea.

It will also be very, very helpful if some people newer to the debate were to review some of the arguments & lengthy discussions on this topic that were held on CAF within just the last several months. Search ‘gay marriage’ and you’ll find exhaustive discussions which shouldn’t need to be repeated here, because most of the key aspects of the topic have been thoroughly aired.

1. Law doesn’t work on asusmptions. It depends on the text. Children are not mentioned in law as a requirement or expectation of civil marriage. I agree gay marriage has societal implications. Everything we do has them.
2. While states may not be writing bigamy into law, they are writing same sex marriage into law. Then gays have a legal right to civil marriage. The laws stand regardless of whether anyone thinks the law should exist.

3.Regarding marriage law and equal treatment, what are you talking about? My point is that if the state allows same sex marriage, then gays have a right to marry.

1. I haven’t said anything about what is good or bad. What are you talking about?
2. Glad you have reviewed all the threads about gay marriage. What is the number one thing you learned?

 

[WillieWonka]

Homosexuals do not have a right to marry. They clearly are acting on an agenda, whether as useful idiots or other, we do not know, nor is it important.

It is their actions that are wrong.

God’s law and His word are not subject to the whims of the relativists, but they themselves will be subject to His justice, and, I hope, his mercy.

Those of you who content yourselves to argue that there are no absolutes—I hope your arguments will hold sway when you come face-to-face with your Maker.

In some US stares and some nations, same sex marriage is a legal right. In others it is not. Legal rights are determined by legislatures.

 

[WillieWonka]

It must be understood that the reason for the individual’s existence is the betterment of the larger community. Those with same-sex attractions cannot contribute in any meaningful way to this end. Their every desire is, in the end, utterly depraved. This is why reparative therapy is so important. By leaving same-sex attractions behind, such individuals become useful and capable of participating in the Communion of Saints.

How about my gay neighbor’s desire for a new 24" lawn mower? Depraved?

 

[buffalo]

In some US stares and some nations, same sex marriage is a legal right. In others it is not. Legal rights are determined by legislatures.

from the article…

NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT,
BUT A MORAL REVOLUTION
Many believe the cultural battle over homosexuality is
strictly a matter of civil rights. The homosexual movement
does not despise the tactical advantages this perception
secures. However, it seeks much more: a complete inversion
of public morality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press,
homosexual activist Paul Varnell affirms:
The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality
is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic
partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality.
Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate
crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those
can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation
which will continue to fester beneath the law
and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support
conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide
and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal.
On the other hand, if we convince people that
homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination
to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay
marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could
readily accept themselves.
So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge
it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a
sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution
aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.4
4.

 

[WillieWonka]

from the article…

NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT,
BUT A MORAL REVOLUTION
Many believe the cultural battle over homosexuality is
strictly a matter of civil rights. The homosexual movement
does not despise the tactical advantages this perception
secures. However, it seeks much more: a complete inversion
of public morality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press,
homosexual activist Paul Varnell affirms:
The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality
is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic
partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality.
Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate
crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those
can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation
which will continue to fester beneath the law
and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support
conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide
and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal.
On the other hand, if we convince people that
homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination
to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay
marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could
readily accept themselves.
So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge
it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a
sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution
aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.4
4.

The moral condemnation decreases every year. Just look at the progress gays have made in the last thrity years in gaining social acceptance. The momentum is on the gays’ side.

 

[buffalo]

The moral condemnation decreases every year. Just look at the progress gays have made in the last thrity years in gaining social acceptance. The momentum is on the gays’ side.

…SENTIMENTALITY IS NOT AN ARGUMENT
As seen before, Kirk and Madsen recommended speaking to
the heart, not the head. They suggested manipulating people’s
emotions, not addressing them with rational logic.
Thus, homosexual organizations use sentimental arguments
to justify same-sex “marriage.” For example,
Marriage Equality USA suggests people remember their own
beautiful weddings:
What, Exactly, Is Marriage?
For anyone reading this that is already married,
think back to the day your spouse asked you to share
his or her life with you. How special your wedding
day was! Friends and family gathered around ensuring
all was perfect—and for the most part, it was.
Rice and cake aside, had you any idea what marriage
meant? Did you know the legal rights you, as
husband and wife, would gain? Or how your family
was protected?5
Regardless of how a false analogy is packaged, one must
never forget that packaging does not alter substance. An
emotionally packaged false analogy is still a false analogy.
**Without same-sex “marriage,” the homosexual movement’s
bid to impose its ideology on America will fail. **The scuttling
of the movement’s efforts in this regard is vitally important for
all Americans who respect and love natural law and the Ten
Commandments, and the social order derived from them.

 

[Other_Eric]

How about my gay neighbor’s desire for a new 24" lawn mower? Depraved?

As a species of shallow materialism, then yes.

 

[WillieWonka]

…SENTIMENTALITY IS NOT AN ARGUMENT
As seen before, Kirk and Madsen recommended speaking to
the heart, not the head. They suggested manipulating people’s
emotions, not addressing them with rational logic.
Thus, homosexual organizations use sentimental arguments
to justify same-sex “marriage.” For example,
Marriage Equality USA suggests people remember their own
beautiful weddings:
What, Exactly, Is Marriage?
For anyone reading this that is already married,
think back to the day your spouse asked you to share
his or her life with you. How special your wedding
day was! Friends and family gathered around ensuring
all was perfect—and for the most part, it was.
Rice and cake aside, had you any idea what marriage
meant? Did you know the legal rights you, as
husband and wife, would gain? Or how your family
was protected?5
Regardless of how a false analogy is packaged, one must
never forget that packaging does not alter substance. An
emotionally packaged false analogy is still a false analogy.
**Without same-sex “marriage,” the homosexual movement’s
bid to impose its ideology on America will fail. **The scuttling
of the movement’s efforts in this regard is vitally important for
all Americans who respect and love natural law and the Ten
Commandments, and the social order derived from them.

Well, if the gays re manipulating emotins, they are doing a great job at it. It’s been a steady march towards more and more acceptance for thirty years.

But, you pose a great question about marriage.Can anyone tell us what civil marriage is?

 

[WillieWonka]

As a species of shallow materialism, then yes.

Does everyone who wants a 24" lawnmower harbor an utterly depraved desire? The Catholic husband and father, too?

 

[Benadam]

In Jesus two natures unite the cosmos. A person is the union of a body and soul. Heaven and earth can’t unite in two human natures. Two souls can’t make a person. Two people of the same sex can’t unite in marriage.

Nothing is united by two of the same anything. That is a fundamental reality about meaningfull union.That’s the reality about marriage . It’s strength is the harmonious union of two things that are not the same.

Same sex marriage is impossible because marriage is a union of two different things.

The harm is not in the disorientation and even behaviour it causes can be managed, but not as a lie.,

 

[Elizabeth502]

1. Law doesn’t work on asusmptions. It depends on the text. Children are not mentioned in law as a requirement or expectation of civil marriage. I agree gay marriage has societal implications. Everything we do has them.
2. While states may not be writing bigamy into law, they are writing same sex marriage into law. Then gays have a legal right to civil marriage. The laws stand regardless of whether anyone thinks the law should exist.

3.Regarding marriage law and equal treatment, what are you talking about? My point is that if the state allows same sex marriage, then gays have a right to marry.

1. I haven’t said anything about what is good or bad. What are you talking about?
2. Glad you have reviewed all the threads about gay marriage. What is the number one thing you learned?

Buffalo seems to understand the law and the concepts of civil rights more clearly than you do. Even a law by itself is not a civil right. Laws which have not been declared inherent human rights (but societal privileges) can indeed be changed. There is no absolute value to a civil law in itself, depending on the nature of that law.

I am not the one needing to review the several previous long threads about gay marriage. You are the one, as you’re bringing up aspects already discussed as if these are new arguments (on your part). They are not. Nor do I need to review them, as I was a prominent contributor to some of them. I know how critical primary parents of complementary genders are to the formation of a complete human person, so I will continue to contribute to these threads.

Declaring a law to be a “right” does not make it so. And laws can be changed, and frequently are so. You seem to have some notion of the permanence of every new law, when in fact most laws are subject to modification, from a little to a lot. They are subject also of course to interpretation and reversal by courts.

Law works both on text and on assumptions arising from practice of the concept being legalized or interpreted. Law is interpreted based on common understandings of those practices & concepts. Law is always about context.

The purpose of civil marriage is not to affirm & codify romantic personal relationships – whether heterosexual or homoexual. Again, as two consenting adults you have the right to associate without restriction; you do not have the right to marry by virtue of that association. The purpose of civil marriage is to establish a unit for the procreation and raising of children in a stable structure.for the orderly continuation of society.

 

[Other_Eric]

Does everyone who wants a 24" lawnmower harbor an utterly depraved desire? The Catholic husband and father, too?

In the absence of a psychological pathology that would indicate otherwise, such as same-sex attraction, we may only say that such a desire has the potential to be depraved.