Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[NoMoreGames]

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

I’ll repeat this again. The government did not invent marriage, but it titled it’s system of civil unions marriage because they mirrored certain aspects of religious marriage (sans God). The government is not trying to change religious marriage, but why can’t they change their own institution that they titled marriage?

 

[NoMoreGames]

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.

Probably could.

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.

I have acknowledged that unjust laws are very possible (I have made analogies to slavery many times)

I would consider an unjust law one that limits the social rights of an individual (in the case that their actions do not infringe upon he rights of others, in which case both must be limited to an extent) or one that allows others to infringe upon the rights of others (abortion: giving the mother total control over the live f her baby, I say was all agree that is unjust).

Not allowing gay marriage is unjust because it prevents an individual from from a union with another individual. This union does not infringe upon the rights of others. If two men get married, it no way would that effect another individual. It’s happening in other countries every day, is it infringing on your rights as all? Probably not.

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.

I have admitting to not understand your use of the term natural law, so it would probably be best to deal with it, if that is what your argument is based off of.

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.”

Then what is the government’s interest in traditional marriage? To continue the population? That can happen just as easily without marriage. The government exists only for the people it governs. A portion of those people’s rights are being limited by not allowing it, therefore the government is not serving it’s purpose in this aspect.

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.

the division between sex for fun and sex for procreation has ben made long before the petition for gay marriage began. Are you suggesting that unless it is to conceive, sex (within a marriage) is wrong?

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

I commend you for not basing it off of religion, but that doesn’t mean it is legitimate.

 

[magdelaine]

Then what is the government’s interest in traditional marriage? To continue the population? That can happen just as easily without marriage.

Ha! That’s it of course!

People can and do continue to have children without marriage. But it is bad for people, it is bad for society, and it is bad for civilization to do so. Marriage protects and fosters these things (people, society, and civilization).

If you change the definition of marriage to suit your personal desires, you *will *effectively destroy it. Call relationships between SS individuals what you want, but don’t call them marriage.

As I’ve tried to point out earlier on this thread, you refuse to acknowledge that there is a meaning to marriage that is beyond your hackneyed understanding of it. Please, do some research before you insist it can and should be changed!

 

[NoMoreGames]

Ha! That’s it of course!

People can and do continue to have children without marriage. But it is bad for people, it is bad for society, and it is bad for civilization to do so. Marriage protects and fosters these things.

If you change the definition of marriage to suit your personal desires, you *will *effectively destroy it. Call relationships between SS individuals what you want, but don’t call it marriage.

As I’ve tried to point out earlier on this thread, you refuse to acknowledge that there is a meaning to marriage that is beyond your hackneyed understanding of it. Please, do some research before you insist it can and should be changed!

Ok so you say that gay marriage would be bad for people, society, and civilization (at least that’s what it seems like you’re saying). You say call relationships between gays anything you want but not marriage. Would that then preserve society? Call an atomic bomb a teddy bear and it won’t have the same effect?

 

[RyanL]

Not allowing gay marriage is unjust because it prevents an individual from from a union with another individual.

I’m afraid I’m at work and don’t have time to reply right now, but as a preliminary matter I’m curious as to what you think is preventing Larry and Steve from “being in a union” today…

Aren’t you really concerned about conferring on these people, who are already in a union (of sorts), the government approved, taxpayer sponsored benefits currently afforded traditionally married couples?

If so, your argument needs to address why the government should positively extend benefits to a practice which people can currently quite-legally engage in at this moment. Why should I pay to incentivize their activity? As a reminder, this was the topic of pretty much all of my previous posts on this thread.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[NoMoreGames]

I’m afraid I’m at work and don’t have time to reply right now, but as a preliminary matter I’m curious as to what you think is preventing Larry and Steve from “being in a union” today…

Aren’t you really concerned about conferring on these people, who are already in a union (of sorts), the government approved, taxpayer sponsored benefits currently afforded traditionally married couples?

If so, your argument needs to address why the government should positively extend benefits to a practice which people can currently quite-legally engage in at this moment. Why should I pay to incentivize their activity? As a reminder, this was the topic of pretty much all of my previous posts on this thread.

God Bless,
RyanL

Why should you pay taxes to give benefits to traditional married people?

Simple. You live in a country bast on diversity and freedoms. It is not right to be willing to pay to let some people have a right, and deny it to others. Coexist.

 

[Gamera]

Why should you pay taxes to give benefits to traditional married people?

Simple. You live in a country bast on diversity and freedoms. It is not right to be willing to pay to let some people have a right, and deny it to others. Coexist.

Actually, I live in a country based on limited government. That means that the government possesses only those powers given to it by the people through the Constitution.

Those advocating gay “marriage” do not want co-existence. They want the government to wield unprecedented power by changing the definition of marriage. That isn’t co-existence. It’s totalitarianism.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Ha! That’s it of course!

People can and do continue to have children without marriage. But it is bad for people, it is bad for society, and it is bad for civilization to do so. Marriage protects and fosters these things (people, society, and civilization).!

also, it’s not as if the tradition family unit would no longer exist. The same amount of people would join into traditional marriages as ever. Anyone who would benefit from gay marriage wasn’t about to go make a traditional white picket family any time soon even if they couldn’t be married.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Actually, I live in a country based on limited government. That means that the government possesses only those powers given to it by the people through the Constitution.

Those advocating gay “marriage” do not want co-existence. They want the government to wield unprecedented power by changing the definition of marriage. That isn’t co-existence. It’s totalitarianism.

and projecting only the traditional view of marriage isn’t equally similar to totalitarianism?

and changing the terms of one of it’s own institutions isn’t exactly unprecedented. (see my other post(s) about how religious and governmental marriage are NOT the same institution).

 

[RyanL]

Why should you pay taxes to give benefits to traditional married people?

As a reminder, this was the topic of pretty much all of my previous posts on this thread.

 

[Gamera]

and projecting only the traditional view of marriage isn’t equally similar to totalitarianism?

No, because by recognizing marriages as traditionally defined, the government claims no authority to control the definition of marriage. In contrast, calling something which no society has ever considered to constitute marriage “marriage” is an attempt by government to control things far outside its limits. It’s “1984” complete with newspeak.

 

[NoMoreGames]

No, because by recognizing marriages as traditionally defined, the government claims no authority to control the definition of marriage. In contrast, calling something which no society has ever considered to constitute marriage “marriage” is an attempt by government to control things far outside its limits. It’s “1984” complete with newspeak.

on a srcastic note, newspeak was creaded to limit the meaning of words down to their primary meaning and nothing else. I’d arge that’s what the current situation is. Expanding a definition ic completely opposite to the concepts of newspeak.

now on to the real comments. You keep saying that the government has no control over marriage, but every post of mine that you’ve quoted, you remove the section where I explain the difference between the religious and governmental institutions of marriage and have yet to comment on that idea. Why?

 

[NoMoreGames]

As a reminder, this was the topic of pretty much all of my previous posts on this thread.

So if an individual does not support the idea that their tax dollars are being sent to aid other nations, should the government not do that? Tax dollars are being spent to kill (abortion, wars, death penalty) but you’re against tax dollars being spent to bind a couple in the eyes of the government?

Actually, I live in a country based on limited government. That means that the government possesses only those powers given to it by the people through the Constitution.

Those advocating gay “marriage” do not want co-existence. They want the government to wield unprecedented power by changing the definition of marriage. That isn’t co-existence. It’s totalitarianism.

actually we live in a republic created by founders who knew that the beliefs of the common man were not well educated and unbiased enough to actually have direct control over the laws.

I would say they do want to coexist. They aren’t asking that marriage be changed to only allow homosexual marriages. Traditional marriage would still exist in the same frequency as before. Allowing gays to marry is not going to make more gay people, nor are people who were going to enter a traditional marriage going to suddenly marry someone of the same gender.

 

[Swan]

I’m not ignoring the other questions to me a few pages ago, I just though I’d state that it’s surprising how many people don’t understand the difference between religious marriage, and the civil union which adopted the term marriage. You can be married in one without the other, therefore they must be different. Catholics just don’t have a problem with the state using their term at this point because they remain somewhat similar. Perhaps the uproar should have happened when the government adopted the term in the first place…

I think this is a really good point. Outrage at the government allowing/performing marriage that was not a sacrament, i.e., civil marriage, must have really upset some folks. Suddenly, even atheists could marry! And couples who had no intention of ever having children! And folks who’d been divorced! The fervor over this seems to have died down and you’d think that the difference between secular and sacramental would be so clear at this point that this would be a non-issue, but, alas, it is not the case.

 

[Gamera]

on a srcastic note, newspeak was creaded to limit the meaning of words down to their primary meaning and nothing else. I’d arge that’s what the current situation is. Expanding a definition ic completely opposite to the concepts of newspeak.

Hmm. Admittedly it’s been a while since I read it, but weren’t all efforts to change word definitions to accomodate party line a part of newspeak? But I also recall the one overly-intellectual party ideologue who wanted to narrow down vocabulary so that the lay people would have trouble expressing rebellious thoughts (and soon he himself was “disappeared”), is that what you’re thinking of?

now on to the real comments. You keep saying that the government has no control over marriage,

It isn’t that I think the government has “no control over marriage.” Government can enact procedural regulations, such as requiring a marriage license, requiring a witness, requiring the solemnizing official to file papers, etc. Procedural regulations don’t change the nature of marriage. What I deny is that the government possesses the authority to change marriage itself.

but every post of mine that you’ve quoted, you remove the section where I explain the difference between the religious and governmental institutions of marriage and have yet to comment on that idea. Why?

I’m not aware of having removed anything. I’m also not aware of there being any such thing as a “government institution of marriage.” That’s like saying there’s a “government institution of parenthood.” Again, government can enact procedural regulations (such as requiring the mother’s name on the birth certificate) but that doesn’t make motherhood a “governmental institution.”

 

[Gamera]

I think this is a really good point. Outrage at the government allowing/performing marriage that was not a sacrament, i.e., civil marriage, must have really upset some folks. Suddenly, even atheists could marry! And couples who had no intention of ever having children! And folks who’d been divorced! The fervor over this seems to have died down and you’d think that the difference between secular and sacramental would be so clear at this point that this would be a non-issue, but, alas, it is not the case.

The Catholic Church never has denied that atheists can marry. Again, people here seem totally unfamiliar with what Catholics believe about Natural Law.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Hmm. Admittedly it’s been a while since I read it, but weren’t all efforts to change word definitions to accomodate party line a part of newspeak? But I also recall the one overly-intellectual party ideologue who wanted to narrow down vocabulary so that the lay people would have trouble expressing rebellious thoughts (and soon he himself was “disappeared”), is that what you’re thinking of?

one of the minor character’s jobs was to reduce the dictionary to as few words as possible, in today’s society that would be double plus ungood.

It isn’t that I think the government has “no control over marriage.” Government can enact procedural regulations, such as requiring a marriage license, requiring a witness, requiring the solemnizing official to file papers, etc. Procedural regulations don’t change the nature of marriage. What I deny is that the government possesses the authority to change marriage itself.

I’m not aware of having removed anything. I’m also not aware of there being any such thing as a “government institution of marriage.” That’s like saying there’s a “government institution of parenthood.” Again, government can enact procedural regulations (such as requiring the mother’s name on the birth certificate) but that doesn’t make motherhood a “governmental institution.”

Then how is it that a couple can be married without involving any faith at all? They are two separate institutions sharing a title. Government took the cue from religion, but there are fundamental differences (aka the involvement of God) in what they are today.

 

[Gamera]

actually we live in a republic created by founders who knew that the beliefs of the common man were not well educated and unbiased enough to actually have direct control over the laws.

I would say they do want to coexist. They aren’t asking that marriage be changed to only allow homosexual marriages. Traditional marriage would still exist in the same frequency as before. Allowing gays to marry is not going to make more gay people, nor are people who were going to enter a traditional marriage going to suddenly marry someone of the same gender.

I don’t claim that gay “marriage” would “make more gay people.” That isn’t the problem. The problem is that the government lacks the authority to re-invent marriage.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The Catholic Church never has denied that atheists can marry. Again, people here seem totally unfamiliar with what Catholics believe about Natural Law.

so two atheists could go into a church and be married? I think they’d sooner walk into a court house, which is not tied to Catholicism in any way. I asked before doubt natural law, I said I didn’t under stand what you meant, so why won’t you explain it?

 

[Gamera]

Then how is it that a couple can be married without involving any faith at all?

Precisely because there exists an institution of marriage in Natural Law. One doesn’t need religion to marry.

They are two separate institutions sharing a title. Government took the cue from religion, but there are fundamental differences (aka the involvement of God) in what they are today.

Not all Natural Law marriages are sacramental marriages, that’s true. But I’ve never heard it argued before that government created marriage, or that marriage is a government institution.