Do you support imposing your belief system on non-believers?

[TK421]

Likewise support of SSM isn’t a strictly secular idea and you can find support for it among many religious adherents of all faiths.

Correct.

So the issue should not be seen as imposing religious beliefs, but on advancing a certain idea towards the common good. It is very much a secular issue, and it has been since ancient times.

 

[K9Buck]

In the context of this discussion - and perhaps I was once again missing the point - essentially everyone on earth is influenced in some way by religious beliefs.

Sure, I don’t believe that is in dispute.

 

[Dan123]

I am a Catholic but I am also a conservative libertarian and I don’t want our nation’s government and laws based on religious ideals. Would that describe you as well?

Not a catholic or libertarian so I’d probably have the government doing a bit more than you would; but I would agree laws shouldn’t only have religious reasoning. If the primary reason for a rule cannot be justified except by appealing to a particular religion, I’d usually consider it a non-starter. If it can then I’d consider the weight based on the strength of the argument.

 

[K9Buck]

So the issue should not be seen as imposing religious beliefs, but on advancing a certain idea towards the common good.

The devil is always in the details, isn’t it?

 

[Dan123]

So the issue should not be seen as imposing religious beliefs, but on advancing a certain idea towards the common good.

Sure, but then who defines the common good. I for example think it’s in the common good for us to recognize that families come in a lot of shapes and sizes; others may want to idealize a single ‘model’ family and try to persuade or even coerce others to try and fit that model. Both would think they were moving towards a common good.

 

[K9Buck]

“Secular law” strikes me as an oxymoron. From an entirely secular standpoint, there is no proven or unchanging moral foundation for the definition of what is a good, versus what is an evil.

Since man is by nature and vocation a religious being (CCC44), there is essentially no one on earth who has not been formed to some degree by one or more of various religious beliefs.

Seculars believe that they, along with society, determine what is moral. That’s why they believe that abortion is “moral”. I believe that morality comes from God and is never changing.

 

[TK421]

In the context of this discussion - and perhaps I was once again missing the point - essentially everyone on earth is influenced in some way by religious beliefs.

Definitely. That’s because religious beliefs (in addition to divine revelation) are rooted in reason and value systems. Christianity isn’t just a set of ideas that people follow in the privacy of their homes or at a church. Christianity changes everything about a society. The same is true for Islam, Hinduism, etc.

 

[PetraG]

I disagree that it’s necessary. Marriage is, fundamentally, a contract between two consenting adults and can be governed by the same laws that apply to contracts between people doing business. Presumably, those entering into marriage would use a notary as evidence of their agreement.

What’s the equivalent in contract law to a no-fault divorce?

 

[TK421]

Sure, but then who defines the common good. I for example think it’s in the common good for us to recognize that families come in a lot of shapes and sizes; others may want to idealize a single ‘model’ family and try to persuade or even coerce others to try and fit that model. Both would think they were moving towards a common good.

A person can argue that. Not at all effectively, but they can argue it.

‘Common good’ means looking at the stability, safety, happiness, and overall well-being of a society. So we can examine if there isn’t something intrinsically flawed about viewing a same-sex couple the same as the standard union between a man and a woman. This is especially true as it pertains to the well-being of children. We can also examine if human sexuality is rigid or if it is to some extent malleable. We now know for a fact that it is malleable and that people’s appetites can change based on their culture and exposure in their environment. So it has the ability to spread within the mainstream population.

And if you set aside feelings and sentiment, the evidence would say that same-sex marriage is indeed harmful. Adultery and divorce are also harmful.

They are widely practiced in the world and especially in the rich parts of the world that can more easily get away with it, but the damage is still there. It is something spurred on by human passion and human addiction. If a person absolutely wants sexual gratification and sexual freedom in various ways, they are going to find a way to get what they want, and the rationalizations will come after the fact rather than before. You can’t reason somebody out of something that they never reasoned their way into.

 

[K9Buck]

What’s the equivalent in contract law to a no-fault divorce?

I don’t know. I’m speaking in generalities. In any event, we’re deviating from the topic at hand.

 

[K9Buck]

‘Common good’ means looking at the stability, safety, happiness, and overall well-being of a society.

I would argue that the U.S. became the greatest nation in the history of the world because its people were FREE to be productive, free to innovate and free to be wildly successful. Restricting personal liberty is antithetical to the common good.

 

[TK421]

I would argue that the U.S. became the greatest nation in the history of the world because its people were FREE to be productive, free to innovate and free to be wildly successful. Restricting personal liberty is antithetical to the common good.

There is a very strong historical case that as societies become more lax towards sexual ethics, they go into decline. This is true historically both in the West and in the East.

Productivity and innovation are well-and-good, but let’s not confuse that with dependency and addiction.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t know. I’m speaking in generalities. In any event, we’re deviating from the topic at hand.

My point is that society has some skin in the domestic partnership game. It is not out of place to put regulations on those who hope to have societal protection of their rights in the event of problems or who expect society to respect their declaration of mutual commitment (by recognizing them to have the highest priority in rights among family members, altered inheritance assumptions, and so on).

 

[K9Buck]

Productivity and innovation are well-and-good, but let’s not confuse that with dependency and addiction.

I don’t believe anyone is doing that.

 

[K9Buck]

My point is that society has some skin in the domestic partnership game.

How does my marriage to my wife (incidentally, we are a heterosexual, Catholic couple ) affect you?

 

[TK421]

How does my marriage to my wife (incidentally, we are a heterosexual, Catholic couple ) affect you?

For real? Wow.

It affects everything. A lifestyle and value system that optimizes a person’s ability to positively affect themselves and the people around them changes the world, either for good or for bad.

What if 75% of the population regularly watched pornography, watched TV for hours, and took opioids. What if most people decided to not bother with marriage at all? You honestly believe this wouldn’t radically impact society? How long do you think this society would be a leader in the world? How long would it be an economic leader? How long would it be a leader in innovation? What would its mental health outlook like? How fulfilled would people be?

A person who discerns their vocation doesn’t just do it for themselves. Their vocations affects everybody that they will ever meet and everybody that they will ever influence.

 

[K9Buck]

Thanks @TK421, but I disagree. My marriage has no effect on you.

 

[Dan123]

‘Common good’ means looking at the stability, safety, happiness, and overall well-being of a society. So we can examine if there isn’t something intrinsically flawed about viewing a same-sex couple the same as the standard union between a man and a woman. This is especially true as it pertains to the well-being of children.

So lets do a specific scenario based on someone who’s an acquaintance to me. A man and woman marry and have a little girl, less than a year after the child’s birth the parents pass away in a car accident. The sister of the now deceased wife adopts the child as were the wishes of the couple. The sister is also gay and in a long term relationship with another woman.

Would the adoptive mother marrying her long time but same-sex partner form a more stable home for the child?

And if you set aside feelings and sentiment, the evidence would say that same-sex marriage is indeed harmful.

A person can argue that. Not at all effectively, but they can argue it.

We can also examine if human sexuality is rigid or if it is to some extent malleable. We now know for a fact that it is malleable and that people’s appetites can change based on their culture and exposure in their environment.

How do you determine if sexuality is malleable or if less discrimination towards homosexuals simply reveals an always-existing characteristic of human sexuality?

What if most people decided to not bother with marriage at all? You honestly believe this wouldn’t radically impact society?

Should we ban not-marrying by a certain age then? Perhaps arrange marriages if you fail to form one by a cut off age?

What does a society look like when individual liberties are ignored in favor of the 'common good?

 

[TK421]

Thanks @TK421, but I disagree. My marriage has no effect on you.

Your marriage is changing the world as much or more than your career.

 

[TK421]

A person who responds to a vocation (priesthood, married life, generous single life, etc.) alters the course of history through their decisions and how faithfully they follow through with those decisions.