Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[Gamera]

The government allows single parent adoption/fertilization (octo-mom). I think they already have changed it by your definition.

Huh? Who changed the definition of what constitutes a “mother” or a “child?” Single parent status doesn’t change the nature of the relationship between parent and child. On the contrary, it would be a power grab for the government to declare that single parents aren’t parents.

Yes, adoption into the line of consanguinity has always been universally recognized. A family is two or more people related by blood, marriage or adoption. The question was what I meant by the term “family unit,” and the answer is marriage and consanguinity (adoption means being “adopted” into the line of consanguinity).

 

[Gamera]

For them it means equality.

Huh? “Marriage” means “equality”? So if I want to argue that I should get the same size piece of cake as my friend, I should say, “There should be marriage between us?” That’s just gibberish. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “equality.” “Equality” means “equality.” “Marriage” means “marriage.” They are two different words.

I remember when i was very young 6 or 7 one of my friends married me to a ‘girlfriend’ Should that be a legal binding union?

You hadn’t reached the age of consent.

Civil weddings and the idea of a catholic wedding are already much seperated. Their is no reason that civil weddings cannot accept same sex couples…

Sure there is: because it isn’t a marriage. The state lacks the authority to change the definition of “marriage.”

 

[NoMoreGames]

Huh? Who changed the definition of what constitutes a “mother” or a “child?” Single parent status doesn’t change the nature of the relationship between parent and child. On the contrary, it would be a power grab for the government to declare that single parents aren’t parents.

Yes, adoption into the line of consanguinity has always been universally recognized. A family is two or more people related by blood, marriage or adoption. The question was what I meant by the term “family unit,” and the answer is marriage and consanguinity (adoption means being “adopted” into the line of consanguinity).

but those family units do not have both parents. Should the government not recognize them as well?

 

[Gamera]

but those family units do not have both parents. Should the government not recognize them as well?

“Should the government not recognize them?” I don’t understand what you ask. The government lacks the power to declare that a single parent is no longer a parent for precisely the same reason that the government lacks the power to declare that a gay union constitutes a marriage.

 

[NoMoreGames]

“Should the government not recognize them?” I don’t understand what you ask. The government lacks the power to declare that a single parent is no longer a parent for precisely the same reason that the government lacks the power to declare that a gay union constitutes a marriage.

that a gay union constitutes a religious marriage, no they can’t. The government has an institution called marriage that is separate form the church’s institution. The have compete control over that.

 

[Squishy]

Huh? “Marriage” means “equality”? So if I want to argue that I should get the same size piece of cake as my friend, I should say, “There should be marriage between us?” That’s just gibberish. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “equality.” “Equality” means “equality.” “Marriage” means “marriage.” They are two different words.

Did you deliberatly misunderstand me here? Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it.

You hadn’t reached the age of consent.

And if we where all 16?

Sure there is: because it isn’t a marriage. The state lacks the authority to change the definition of “marriage.”

I think the state are the only ones who can change the definition of what constitues a civil wedding.

 

[Gamera]

Did you deliberatly misunderstand me here? Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it.

You said marriage means equality. I assumed you meant what you said. If that isn’t what you meant, then please rephrase so that I will know what you mean.

 

[Gamera]

that a gay union constitutes a religious marriage, no they can’t. The government has an institution called marriage that is separate form the church’s institution. The have compete control over that.

And what about the natural institution of marriage? Who has complete control over that?

 

[NoMoreGames]

And what about the natural institution of marriage? Who has complete control over that?

natural institution? I don’t know about you, but I consider natural either referring to something created before man, or that happens without man’s involvement. Marriage isn’t either of those.

Those who support gay marriage are usually not trying to get churches to accept it, just the state.

 

[Squishy]

You said marriage means equality. I assumed you meant what you said. If that isn’t what you meant, then please rephrase so that I will know what you mean.

Having the right to call their relationships marriages makes them equal in their eyes.

And what about the natural institution of marriage? Who has complete control over that?

Marriage is a man made thing(ok thats arguable but still) it does not exist in nature. No other animal subscribes to such a pratice. So i would think claims of a natural institution a little flawed.

 

[Gamera]

natural institution? I don’t know about you, but I consider natural either referring to something created before man, or that happens without man’s involvement. Marriage isn’t either of those.

Those who support gay marriage are usually not trying to get churches to accept it, just the state.

Okay, let’s back way up. Do you understand what is meant in philosophy and theology by the term “Natural Law?” Because that is what I am referring to. Not Church law.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Okay, let’s back way up. Do you understand what is meant in philosophy and theology by the term “Natural Law?” Because that is what I am referring to. Not Church law.

So by natural law humans get married? If that is what you are saying, no I don’t understand what you mean by natural law. The term has been used frequently in this topic but a coherent definition has yet to be put together.

 

[Gamera]

Having the right to call their relationships marriages makes them equal in their eyes.

Okay, but see, a few posts back, didn’t you argue that “marriage” was just a word, and that it didn’t really mean anything? Now you’re saying that it means a great deal.

Marriage is a man made thing(ok thats arguable but still) it does not exist in nature. No other animal subscribes to such a pratice. So i would think claims of a natural institution a little flawed.

“Natural” as in “natural law.” Nothing to do with “the law of nature” or “the law of the jungle.” This is a Catholic forum so I’d assumed people would know what I mean by the term “Natural Law.” Apparently not. Marriage is an institution of the Natural Law. Natural Law in philosophy has nothing to do with animals.

 

[Squishy]

Okay, but see, a few posts back, didn’t you argue that “marriage” was just a word, and that it didn’t really mean anything? Now you’re saying that it means a great deal.

Equality in being able to use the same descriptive term that other legal unions are allowed to use. A legal union between 2 people has been called a marriage for milenia. Why do you want to change it now?. When the government decided to use the term marriage to describe civil partnerships, the word became a lot more encoumpasing than the original religious term.

“Natural” as in “natural law.” Nothing to do with “the law of nature” or “the law of the jungle.” This is a Catholic forum so I’d assumed people would know what I mean by the term “Natural Law.” Apparently not. Marriage is an institution of the Natural Law. Natural Law in philosophy has nothing to do with animals.

What exactly does ‘Natural Law’ have to say on the instituation of marriage ?

 

[magdelaine]

Equality in being able to use the same descriptive term that other legal unions are allowed to use. A legal union between 2 people has been called a marriage for milenia. Why do you want to change it now?. When the government decided to use the term marriage to describe civil partnerships, the word became a lot more encoumpasing than the original religious term.

What exactly does ‘Natural Law’ have to say on the instituation of marriage ?

A legal union between a man and a woman has been called marriage for a millenia. Why do **you **want to change it now?

 

[Squishy]

A legal union between a man and a woman has been called marriage for a millenia. Why do **you **want to change it now?

Because the law has been changed, same sex relationships are no longer illegal. Which they where for a milenia

 

[Gamera]

Because the law has been changed, same sex relationships are no longer illegal. Which they where for a milenia

Fornication is no longer illegal, does that mean people who fornicate are married?

I don’t want to change the definition of marriage. Apparently you do. Marriage remains what it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. The government lacks the power to change that.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Fornication is no longer illegal, does that mean people who fornicate are married?

I don’t want to change the definition of marriage. Apparently you do. Marriage remains what it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. The government lacks the power to change that.

fornication is not a monogomus relationship between two individuals based on love.

The government has no authority to change what the religious definition of marriage is. They do however, have the authority to change the terms of the governmental institution called marriage.

 

[Gamera]

fornication is not a monogomus relationship between two individuals based on love.

The government has no authority to change what the religious definition of marriage is. They do however, have the authority to change the terms of the governmental institution called marriage.

But marriage is not a governmental institution. The government didn’t invent it; therefore, the government cannot re-invent it.

 

[RyanL]

So most of what I’ve written has been totally ignored by the pro-same-sex-marriage folks. I hesitate to try again…but alas…

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the government cannot pass a law which proclaims the relationships between same sex couples to be semantically and “legally” the same as the relationships between opposite sexed couples, traditionally referred to as marriage. I’m pretty sure we all agree that such a bill could make it through congress.

The point of contention is whether or not such a law would be just, which is to say whether such a law would have the binding character of law. In order for this portion of the argument to be persuasive, however, folks like NoMoreGames need to acknowledge that (1) an unjust law is possible (which is a fact not admitted by legal positivists) and (2) give a brief account of the criteria for evaluating what constitutes an unjust law.

In that context, it can be evaluated whether or not a “gay marriage law” would be within the sphere of authority of the government or whether it would be unjust, and thus not a proper exercise of government authority. I, and other folks who ascribe to the Natural Law, believe such a law would be unjust. I’ll let others deal with what is meant by “the Natural Law,” but suffice it to say that so far it is quite visibly being misunderstood.

Moreover, I have asserted that the “gay marriage law” is beyond the government’s proper regulatory role because the government does not have a recognizable interest in the subject matter. This would be an argument for the legal positivists and pure libertarians out there. I have yet to see a response that doesn’t focus exclusively on platitudes, which platitudes would seemingly also justify the “nice police.”

Now, I could also articulate some good reasons why recognizing so-called same sex marriage is harmful to traditional marriage. Among those reasons would be the widening divorce between procreation and sex which is at the root of many of the sex issues we have today. Sex-as-recreation rather than sex-as-procreation is disastrous social policy, and so-called same-sex marriage underscores the wrong side of that equation. But maybe that topic needs a post all to itself.

In any case, just wanted to put that out there.

Once again, not a single argument I’ve articulated thus far requires any manner of religious assent. ;0)

God Bless,
RyanL