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

[buffalo]

Sorry. I read two of your blind links and they were terrible. That’s it. If you have something to say, then say it yourself.

Until then, Just read what the pope wrote. It’s not difficult. He was very plain.

That’s fine. But other folks can read them and see for themselves you are off base.

 

[gearhead]

I don’t think the church has the right to interfere with ppl’s private lives, but as a citizen of my country, I also want the best for my country.

As do I.

I don’t want the state to decide who walks around as a “married” couple. that is NONE of the states business.

So you’re for the abolition of civil marriage altogether? The state has been in the marriage business for centuries, if not millenia.

But the state shouldn’t give benefits to couples which intrinsically are incapable of reproducing (ie benefiting the state).

How does reproduction benefit the state? Or rather, people will reproduce at some rate all on their own even without state benefit. How does the increase in reproduction associated with marriage benefit the state?

It can’t be financial benefit; in any country with a deficit budget, more people represent a net cost to the state on average, not a net benefit.

There are tons of other ways that population increase causes costs and negative impacts. Most of my professional work (in transportation engineering and planning) deals with the question “how are we going to deal with the problem of more people moving between more places?” And most of the answers that policy makers have come up with to that question have a significant price tag (both monetary and non-monetary) associated with them.

You’re not the first person I’ve heard that’s said that procreation benefits the state, but it’s always glossed over as if it doesn’t need explanation. However, it’s far from certain that procreation does

Let them get married by which ever religion will marry them. Let them get visiting rights or other rights that don’t perse cost the state. BUT they should NOT get anything beyond that as those benefits should be saved for couples which can procreate.

If that’s your approach, then why not have any benefits associated with marriage at all? If procreation is what gives marriage value, then why not just benefit the procreation directly and ignore the marriage?

here is a good, SECULAr, article from MIT that highlights the legal case against gay marriage: tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

I disagree with the article. If you want to present specific arguments, then I’ll provide specific responses.

 

[WillieWonka]

That’s fine. But other folks can read them and see for themselves you are off base.

I presume other people can read the plain words of the pope, too.

They can read where he says any amount of interest is usury and immoral.

They can read where he says scripture condemns lending at interest.

And they can read where he says it’s no excuse to say the interest was very small.

I wonder if they will think he is off base?

 

[Shredderbeam]

In which case, any other “group” (pair) of people could begin petitioning for similar benefits.

I suppose they could, but those cases would presumably be evaluated on their own merits.
"Elizabeth502:

The benefits do not come first (as a “right”). The benefits proceed from the incentive to develop a heterosexual unit for the purpose of procreation and a stable dual-sex union for posterity. Benefits do not equal rights, and therefore are not universal. The state is not merely rewarding personal relationships. The state is rewarding the dual-sex institution of family. (Never-wed single mothers, for example, do not have the same scope of benefits as married parents would.)

Is that really the original legal justification for the institution of marriage? How do you know this? I’m not attacking, I’m genuinely interested.

You say that as if the word has no other meaning than state benefits. What’s a marriage? A union that the state provides benefits for. Why is a union the state provides benefits for called marriage?

I would guess that originally, a man and a woman would marry, and then apply for legal recognition of that marriage in order to receive various benefits. After some time, this legal recognition just came to be known as “legal marriage”.

 

[Benadam]

1. A pair bond is called a bond because it is observed in nature, not because it is read in an unwritten law.

1. Rproduction is not a rquirement for civil marriage. All couples are treated alike regardless of intent or abilty to reproduce.

You give a lower law more authority than a higher law. Not believable. That demonstrates you don’t accept the existence of a higher law.

Animal morality= If it feels good do it.

 

[gearhead]

Is that really the original legal justification for the institution of marriage? How do you know this? I’m not attacking, I’m genuinely interested.

Personally, I don’t see why the “original legal justification” should dictate how we treat things today.

AFAIK, in every western democracy the original legal justification for the institution of government was the divine right of kings… but we’ve kinda set that concept aside, haven’t we? Yet government continues without it.

 

[WillieWonka]

You give a lower law more authority than a higher law. Not believable. That demonstrates you don’t accept the existence of a higher law.

Animal morality= If it feels good do it.

Sorry. The way you are inserting stuff into past posts is too difficult to deal with. But, I will deal with the above comment.

I don’t give anything a hgher authority. I don’t care. I simply observe civil marriage exists, is used by millions, and advocate for SSM to be included.

You may choose to believe it. You may choose not to believe it.

What does my acceptance of a higher law have to do with anything? All I’m dealing with is civil marriage.

Can you elaborate on your comment about animal morality?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Personally, I don’t see why the “original legal justification” should dictate how we treat things today.

AFAIK, in every western democracy the original legal justification for the institution of government was the divine right of kings… but we’ve kinda set that concept aside, haven’t we? Yet government continues without it.

The original legal justification would give insight. Perhaps it would start a discussion on what the “right” justification is.

Except for the U.S.

 

[Benadam]

Personally, I don’t see why the “original legal justification” should dictate how we treat things today.

AFAIK, in every western democracy the original legal justification for the institution of government was the divine right of kings… but we’ve kinda set that concept aside, haven’t we? Yet government continues without it.

I think I concur. , What is suitable for one population or historic period may not be suitable for another. OTOH what any particular form of government protects is what it deems essential. If it doesn’t get that right it dies so what is essential doesn’t change.

 

[Benadam]

Sorry. The way you are inserting stuff into past posts is too difficult to deal with. But, I will deal with the above comment.

I apologize. Lazy and inadequate concern for formatting on my part.

Can you elaborate on your comment about animal morality?

The things that living creatures seek out as good = mores. Animals seek stimulus to satisfy urges. Their natural environment provides stimulus that satisfies their urges. What feels good is good for animals.

 

[WillieWonka]

I apologize. Lazy and inadequate concern for formatting on my part.

The things that living creatures seek out as good = mores. Animals seek stimulus to satisfy urges. Their natural environment provides stimulus that satisfies their urges. What feels good is good for animals.

OK. The animal idea seems reasonable.

 

[AndyF]

It isn’t a marriage, and to call it this is a diservice to the sacrament.

It is in reality a cult ritual grounded in blasphemy and there is only one creature presiding. So our approach when drawn into a discussion of this issue should orient us immediately to discussions on devil worship, or topics that delve into ouijia boards, black masses and witchcraft, etc.

As it is, when in opposition with an opponent, by our setting the category the opponent receives and psychologically reinforces the message that the context is marriage.

We need to emphasis through immediate topic switching what is actually occuring to an individual when this path is chosen. This forum should do as well.

 

[gearhead]

It isn’t a marriage, and to call it this is a diservice to the sacrament.

Not all marriages are sacraments. A priest even told me that my own marriage wasn’t a sacrament for me.

It is in reality a cult ritual grounded in blasphemy and there is only one creature presiding.

Really? What cult? Be specific.

So our approach when drawn into a discussion of this issue should orient us immediately to discussions on devil worship, or topics that delve into ouijia boards, black masses and witchcraft, etc.

Sounds good. If you want to marginalize yourself and the anti-same-sex marriage movement even more, I’m fine with that. By all means, feel free to make yourself irrelevant to the public debate.

 

[AndyF]

A priest even told me that my own marriage wasn’t a sacrament for me.

see: newadvent.org marriage and sacraments

Really? What cult? Be specific.

The cult of the prince of this world. We either directly or by acts make allegiance to him or to God, and the most welcome of them is to partake in a ritual based on an affront to God.

… marginalize yourself.

I’m in the best company, neither He nor I were popular.

 

[RyanML]

I’m in the best company, neither He nor I were popular.

If you want to talk about marginalization, what about gay Catholics who, rejecting the Church’s concept of homosexuality being a disorder, still try their best to live a life of grace and holiness? We are rejected by the world for our faith and by the Church for our sexual orientation. Trust me, it gets pretty lonely sometimes

 

[gearhead]

see: newadvent.org marriage and sacraments

My point was that if your concern is for the sacrament, then I assume you’re only talking about marriages performed by Catholic priests, and not even all of them (e.g. mine).

When a same-sex couple gets married by a justice of the peace or in a non-Catholic religious setting, what does this have to do with the sacrament of marriage? These things wouldn’t be sacraments even if it was an opposite-sex couple getting married.

The cult of the prince of this world.

Ah. Do they meet once a week like the Christians?

We either directly or by acts make allegiance to him or to God, and the most welcome of them is to partake in a ritual based on an affront to God.

Is a non-religious, opposite-sex marriage also an “affront to God”?

I’m in the best company, neither He nor I were popular.

And you can keep on telling yourself that to your heart’s content as long as you don’t hurt other people.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

If you want to talk about marginalization, what about gay Catholics who, rejecting the Church’s concept of homosexuality being a disorder, still try their best to live a life of grace and holiness? We are rejected by the world for our faith and by the Church for our sexual orientation. Trust me, it gets pretty lonely sometimes

It does indeed.

No matter how insistent people are about how they “hate the sin, not the sinner”, their language shows that they at the very least fear us and most likely are repulsed by us. I believe it is chiefly because of that fear and repulsion that the issue of gay marriage is so volatile. Civil gay marriage will change NOTHING for Catholics, yet Catholics are among the loudest voices against it. Just once I’d like someone to drop the pretension and admit that the reason they don’t want gay people to get married is because they think gay sex is icky and their biggest fear is that one of their children will turn out to be gay.

 

[buffalo]

It does indeed.

No matter how insistent people are about how they “hate the sin, not the sinner”, their language shows that they at the very least fear us and most likely are repulsed by us. I believe it is chiefly because of that fear and repulsion that the issue of gay marriage is so volatile. Civil gay marriage will change NOTHING for Catholics, yet Catholics are among the loudest voices against it. Just once I’d like someone to drop the pretension and admit that the reason they don’t want gay people to get married is because they think gay sex is icky and their biggest fear is that one of their children will turn out to be gay.

I can - gay sex is indeed icky and I pray my children will not practice homosexuality.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I can - gay sex is indeed icky and I pray my children will not practice homosexuality.

Thank you! At least you’re honest and not hiding behind God for your prejudice.

I pray that your children will not be homosexual too. I’ve seen the damage parents with extreme bias can cause.

 

[WillieWonka]

Attitudes change when those kids do acknowledge they are gay. The most powerful weapon the gays have is open acknowledgement they are gey. Then more an more peopel can see those who foecast dire effects from gays are wrong.

When a state allows gay marriage, and nobody can tell it is even happening, it’s hard to get anyone to pay attention to warnings of doom. They don’t have to rely on warnings, they can rely on their own two eyes.