Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[NoMoreGames]

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

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.

they made their own institution of it, but I’m not saying they created the concept of marriage.

 

[Gamera]

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.

Right. Two unmarried atheists, one of each gender and both capable of consent, can walk into a court house and enter into a valid Natural Law marriage. They don’t need a Church.

I asked before doubt natural law, I said I didn’t under stand what you meant, so why won’t you explain it?

Unlikely as it may seem, even I occasionally work. I assumed someone would have provided the CCC sections by the time I got back to posting. Oh, well.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1954-1960 define Natural Law. It is the moral law which is "present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority ecxtends to all men … (CCC 1956) … The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists and the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress … (CCC 1958) … The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law. (CCC 1979).

 

[NoMoreGames]

Right. Two unmarried atheists, one of each gender and both capable of consent, can walk into a court house and enter into a valid Natural Law marriage. They don’t need a Church.

if they don’t need a church then why do the church’s standards still have to apply? I know you’re goign to say it’s not the church, but natural law, but see below.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1954-1960 define Natural Law. It is the moral law which is "present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority ecxtends to all men … (CCC 1956) … The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists and the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress … (CCC 1958) … The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law. (CCC 1979).

So this is Natural Law as the church defines it. So using natural law as a reasoning is the same as saying “it’s a religious belief that marraige is between two people of opposite gender.”

Present in the heart of each man, developed by reason. A gay individual, in his heart, could believe that they want to marry with an individual of the same gender. This view would be supported by their reason that it would go against their natural law (since it is present in their heart) to mary on of the opposite gender.

By giving a religious definition of what natural law is, the concept of natural law can no longer be valid to use as a reason to deny rights to a society (or individual) that does not have to believe in them.

 

[fix]

1955… This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

 

[magdelaine]

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.

How exactly do you make a language smaller (which is what newspeak does) without expanding and distorting the real meaning of words? So, instead of marriage meaning the union of one man and one woman for the perpetuation of the next generation, it now means (according to you) a state-sanctioned union of some kind for undetermined purpose (man-man, woman-woman, man-woman-woman, man-dog, father-daughter, etc.) How does this not impoverish the meaning of marriage?

 

[fix]

This common intellectual basis, certainly in the Western world, is more and more difficult to attain as vociferous nihilist and skeptic pressure groups refuse to accept any binding statements about moral truth, supposedly in the name of tolerance…

In fact, in the Western world, at least in the public sphere, there is bleeding atrophy of understanding what is natural and what is not, leading to changes in ethical mores that are amounting to a profound revolution of the foundations of civilization. These changes are not taking place in the name of some forceful ideology, capable of mustering the support of crowds – as was the case with nationalism and communism, both of which had an altruist element within them – but in the name of pure hedonism and anti-rationalist skepticism, hidden under the mask of tolerance…

The Moral Natural Law: Problems and Prospects

 

[NoMoreGames]

How exactly do you make a language smaller (which is what newspeak does) without expanding and distorting the real meaning of words? So, instead of marriage meaning the union of one man and one woman for the perpetuation of the next generation, it now means (according to you) a state-sanctioned union of some kind for undetermined purpose (man-man, woman-woman, man-woman-woman, man-dog, father-daughter, etc.) How does this not impoverish the meaning of marriage?

I’m not suggesting THE definition of marriages should be changed, just that A definition of marriage is changed. Changing one meaning does not at all effect the other.

“marriage meaning the union of one man and one woman for the perpetuation of the next generation” that would stay the same for the religious institution of marriage.

“a state-sanctioned union of some kind for undetermined purpose” that would be changed.

To say that marriage exists for the sole purpose of perpetuation the next generation is just ridiculous. Ask a married couple why they got married. Sure “to start a family” will probably be on that list, but I’d be willing to bet it will not be the only reason. So when you say “for undermined purposes” is like throwing all the other reason on that list away saying they don’t mean anything.

Just like saying the only non sinful function of sex is to procreate. Ask any couple and I’d be willing to bet that having sex to conceive was not their reason for having sex on their honeymoon. Just because gay couples can’t have sex to procreate, there are other vital functions that sex plays in a marriage that they are fully capable of experiencing.

 

[magdelaine]

I’m not suggesting THE definition of marriages should be changed, just that A definition of marriage is changed. Changing one meaning does not at all effect the other.

“marriage meaning the union of one man and one woman for the perpetuation of the next generation” that would stay the same for the religious institution of marriage.

“a state-sanctioned union of some kind for undetermined purpose” that would be changed.

This just makes my head spin. Why do you need to call this thing that is not marriage marriage?:hypno:

To say that marriage exists for the sole purpose of perpetuation the next generation is just ridiculous. Ask a married couple why they got married. Sure “to start a family” will probably be on that list, but I’d be willing to bet it will not be the only reason. So when you say “for undermined purposes” is like throwing all the other reason on that list away saying they don’t mean anything.

Just like saying the only non sinful function of sex is to procreate. Ask any couple and I’d be willing to bet that having sex to conceive was not their reason for having sex on their honeymoon. Just because gay couples can’t have sex to procreate, there are other vital functions that sex plays in a marriage that they are fully capable of experiencing.

Marriage as an institution exists separately from the individuals that participate in it. Particularly today there seems to be a serious disconnect in understanding what it is for at all. For this I blame contraception, no fault divorce, and abortion, in that order. However, a lack of understanding doesn’t change its meaning.

So, in your opinion, what *is *marriage for? Can you provide some historical or anthropological proof for why you are right and the above is wrong?

 

[NoMoreGames]

This just makes my head spin. Why do you need to call this thing that is not marriage marriage?:hypno:

but is IS marriage, just a different definition of it. look it up, its already defined as ALSO being between two of the same sex. Also is the key word in this case. One word can have two meanings (sticking with the topic at hand, just in our lifetimes we have seen gay undergo many multiple meanings from happy to homosexual and now to stupid, and none of these definitions are incorrect). No definition changing going on in this topic

Marriage as an institution exists separately from the individuals that participate in it. Particularly today there seems to be a serious disconnect in understanding what it is for at all. For this I blame contraception, no fault divorce, and abortion, in that order. However, a lack of understanding doesn’t change its meaning.

So, in your opinion, what *is *marriage for? Can you provide some historical or anthropological proof for why you are right and the above is wrong?

I am against those three things, but I put divorce on top. (growing up in a broken household effects the thoughts of a child more than not even being conceived can.

Marriage is an eternal (or not if one don’t believe in eternity) commitment between two individuals based on unconditional love for one another. I don’t need to provide historical evidence for that, it goes on every day. How can it be simply for the creation of the next generation if sterile and aged couple are happily married every day? I’m not saying that raising a family is not A function of marriage (it is, so the above statement is not necessarily wrong), but it should not be THE defining factor as healthy (straight) marriages can, and do, exist without it.

You might say, “ok they can’t have children, but they are still one man and one woman,” but that was not the argument. It was that marriage was to preserve the next generation, so if a couple cannot have children, gay or straight, why should they be married? The fact is that one of them is, so why not the other?

 

[elts1956]

English is a very flexable and adaptive language. It seems that the majority of people are in agreement that homosexual couples should have the same LEGAL rights as hetrosexual ones. Because for a milenia the word marriage has been used to describe the union of two loving caring individuals the homosexual community feel that it should be used to describe their relationships as well. Which is fair enough.

The actual word marriage is a word. Its the spirit of the union that matters. If gay couples wish to call each other husband and husband (wife and wife) and claim to be married then so be it. God and Religion did not create english. We are free to use our languages as we see fit, and their is NO REASON we cannot allow that marriage be the legal union of 2 people in a relationship.

Ah, the proverbial silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

 

[royal_archer]

English is a very flexable and adaptive language. It seems that the majority of people are in agreement that homosexual couples should have the same LEGAL rights as hetrosexual ones. Because for a milenia the word marriage has been used to describe the union of two loving caring individuals the homosexual community feel that it should be used to describe their relationships as well. Which is fair enough.

The actual word marriage is a word. Its the spirit of the union that matters. If gay couples wish to call each other husband and husband (wife and wife) and claim to be married then so be it. God and Religion did not create english. We are free to use our languages as we see fit, and their is NO REASON we cannot allow that marriage be the legal union of 2 people in a relationship.

Well using the gay logic. I wish to be considered a doctor. Yes I do not meet the traditional qualifications but Why should you discriminate against me. I therefore dictate that you must call me doctor and prvide me with all of the privleges that come with it.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Ah, the proverbial silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

What is that referring to? Gay relationships, the english language or the definition of marriage? Sorry, long day

 

[elts1956]

I agree but government also lacks the power to intrude into the private lives of consenting adults. I believe that it is sinful but the government should not be in the job of criminalizing all sins, only those which directly affect the lives of others.

What do you think the results would be in society if the government were to legalize homosexual unions? Society would change once more.

 

[royal_archer]

English is a very flexable and adaptive language. It seems that the majority of people are in agreement that homosexual couples should have the same LEGAL rights as hetrosexual ones. Because for a milenia the word marriage has been used to describe the union of two loving caring individuals the homosexual community feel that it should be used to describe their relationships as well. Which is fair enough.

The actual word marriage is a word. Its the spirit of the union that matters. If gay couples wish to call each other husband and husband (wife and wife) and claim to be married then so be it. God and Religion did not create english. We are free to use our languages as we see fit, and their is NO REASON we cannot allow that marriage be the legal union of 2 people in a relationship.

If words are just words, why are there such things as hate crimes. Shouldn’t it then be socially acceptable to use racial, sexist, and other terminology? How about if we as a society started refering to other objectionable things with terms dear to others. How about if we refered to AIDs with a term linking it to the gay comunity?

The bottom line is that revering to gay unions as marriage is blatantly offensive.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Well using the gay logic. I wish to be considered a doctor. Yes I do not meet the traditional qualifications but Why should you discriminate against me. I therefore dictate that you must call me doctor and prvide me with all of the privleges that come with it.

that is an extremely loose analogy. Becoming a doctor takes years of schooling, preparation and practice. It is knowledge you must gain to get the title.

I’m not saying marriage doesn’t take work, but committing your live to someone doesn’t require an education to be able to even begin to do it (as being any type of doctor does). Forbidding jobs based on lack of experience and education is one thing, denying rights because of a characteristic that is out of one’s control is another.

 

[NoMoreGames]

What do you think the results would be in society if the government were to legalize homosexual unions? Society would change once more.

Society has never really stop changing…

If words are just words, why are there such things as hate crimes. Shouldn’t it then be socially acceptable to use racial, sexist, and other terminology? How about if we as a society started refering to other objectionable things with terms dear to others. How about if we refered to AIDs with a term linking it to the gay comunity?

The bottom line is that revering to gay unions as marriage is blatantly offensive.

Verbal attacks are not hate crimes. They are not even crimes at all (not including things like slander). I know a lot of people that use racial, sexist and other terminology. The thing is, they ARE allowed to do it. And AIDS usually is inaccurately links solely to the promiscuous gay community, it’s just something that happens.

Offensive to you and others, but offense is not an infringement of rights. Someone could fine wearing mini skirts offensive, and yet they are legal.

 

[royal_archer]

that is an extremely loose analogy. Becoming a doctor takes years of schooling, preparation and practice. It is knowledge you must gain to get the title.

I’m not saying marriage doesn’t take work, but committing your live to someone doesn’t require an education to be able to even begin to do it (as being any type of doctor does). Forbidding jobs based on lack of experience and education is one thing, denying rights because of a characteristic that is out of one’s control is another.

But I have lots of education it just isn’t in the same setting. After all Doctor is just a title. No one is forcing you to let me opperate on you so I am not harming you. Therefore it is none of your business. After all my getting the title of doctor does not impact the relationship you have with your doctor.

 

[royal_archer]

Verbal attacks are not hate crimes. They are not even crimes at all (not including things like slander). I know a lot of people that use racial, sexist and other terminology. The thing is, they ARE allowed to do it. And AIDS usually is inaccurately links solely to the promiscuous gay community, it’s just something that happens.

Offensive to you and others, but offense is not an infringement of rights. Someone could fine wearing mini skirts offensive, and yet they are legal.

So are you implying that you think it is OK if a person went into a bank and the teller yelled out “I’ll take that next little (insert offensive racial term) inline.” ?

I would hope not.

 

[NoMoreGames]

But I have lots of education it just isn’t in the same setting. After all Doctor is just a title. No one is forcing you to let me opperate on you so I am not harming you. Therefore it is none of your business. After all my getting the title of doctor does not impact the relationship you have with your doctor.

if it’s not in hte field of medicine, then any education isn’t applicible and thefore irrelevant.

Doctor is a title, but not necessarily medicinal. So if you have a doctorate in english lit, you are still a doctor but you can’t operate on people.

True, no one is forcing me, but that does not mean you will not do physical harm to my body. It’s none of my business if i let you operate on me without a lisence? I think it is my bussiness even if you have one.

I really don’t see where you are going with this, I don’t even see the connections at this point.

 

[NoMoreGames]

So are you implying that you think it is OK if a person went into a bank and the teller yelled out “I’ll take that next little (insert offensive racial term) inline.” ?

I would hope not.

It wouldn’t be ok, but they could if they really wanted to.