Gay Marriage and The Law

[Rau]

…State legislation tolerating some widespread and hard to eradicate personal moral evils like prostitution, gambling, drinking, contracepting and homosexual acts…

Generally, the tolerance you propose does not need legislation, rather an absence of proscribing legislation! SSM (or the associated State legal framework ) may be an exception given that framework is established by legislation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Generally, the tolerance you propose does not need legislation, rather an absence of proscribing legislation! SSM (or the associated State legal framework ) may be an exception given that framework is established by legislation.

I agree with you, there is a difference between decriminalising (eg sodomy) and legislating some supportive privileges to encourage permanent and faithful relationships between gays…especially given significant numbers will in fact cohabit regardless of law.

But even then, for gay unions, it still appears to be a prudential common good argument yay or nay rather than an always and everywhere impossible doctrinal approach.

 

[rossum]

Ummmm. A biracial man woman couple can have a child. People of different faiths can have a child. Do you realize the comparison you just made does not work?

So, since a post menopausal woman cannot have a child, then such women should be denied marriage?

Good luck getting people to agree with you on that one.

rossum

 

[goout]

So, since a post menopausal woman cannot have a child, then such women should be denied marriage?

Good luck getting people to agree with you on that one.

rossum

No.

 

[kozlosap]

Ummmm. A biracial man woman couple can have a child. People of different faiths can have a child. Do you realize the comparison you just made does not work?

I would venture a guess that a hundred years ago the two issues that I used were just as important to traditionalists of whatever faith as those today who do not believe that humans of the same sex should be allowed to marry. I certainly do not advocate that any recognized Church should be forced to marry anyone they do not believe have met their dogma. Civil marriage, however; is a different situation.

 

[Rau]

I would venture a guess that a hundred years ago the two issues that I used were just as important to traditionalists of whatever faith as those today who do not believe that humans of the same sex should be allowed to marry. I certainly do not advocate that any recognized Church should be forced to marry anyone they do not believe have met their dogma. Civil marriage, however; is a different situation.

What is the worth of a guess? The Church you declare to be yours teaches that persons of the same sex are not eligible to marry. Civil marriage is marriage you know.

 

[edwest2]

Person’s who held the views to which you refer held them on the basis of an idea they manufactured. A prejudice of no foundation. The incongruity of two men binding themselves together in a sexual relationship arises from their fundamental and bodily incompatibility - a reality, not an invention, not a prejudice.

That’s right. Males and females have organs that are designed to work together.

Ed

 

[goout]

I would venture a guess that a hundred years ago the two issues that I used were just as important to traditionalists of whatever faith as those today who do not believe that humans of the same sex should be allowed to marry. I certainly do not advocate that any recognized Church should be forced to marry anyone they do not believe have met their dogma. Civil marriage, however; is a different situation.

What does popular opinion have to do with the truth of the matter?

It cuts both ways. If we are going to use popular opinion (AKA “might makes right”) to redefine marriage, then slavery will happen again, because the definition of “human” will not hold.
In fact human dignity is already a sham. We have abortion, so? Civil rights are a mirage in this country. On the one hand we talk about protecting human rights, and at the same time we don’t even know what it means to be human. Because we as a people are ignorant we must depend on politics to determine morality.

This ignorance is the basis of all these evils: deceived minds that don’t even know what it means to be human. If we don’t know what a human being is, we don’t really know what human rights are. I doubt if the abolition of slavery could happen today.

 

[edwest2]

What does popular opinion have to do with the truth of the matter?

It cuts both ways. If we are going to use popular opinion (AKA “might makes right”) to redefine marriage, then slavery will happen again, because the definition of “human” will not hold.
In fact human dignity is already a sham. We have abortion, so? Civil rights are a mirage in this country. On the one hand we talk about protecting human rights, and at the same time we don’t even know what it means to be human. Because we as a people are ignorant we must depend on politics to determine morality.

This ignorance is the basis of all these evils: deceived minds that don’t even know what it means to be human. If we don’t know what a human being is, we don’t really know what human rights are. I doubt if the abolition of slavery could happen today.

We still have slavery but it’s been relabeled. It’s now called “human trafficking.”

Abortion kills a unique human being with genetic material from both parents, but, as the early arguments went: “it doesn’t look like a baby so it’s just a blob of tissue.” So, if a woman gave birth to a blob of tissue, it’s nothing? Just a blob you can throw away?

No, “WE” are not all ignorant. WE didn’t start this.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Today, more than ever, feelings are more important than the truth, especially regarding human sexuality. It doesn’t matter if the US Supreme Court makes something legal. Legal does not always mean something is right, especially in recent years.

Ed

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Generally, the tolerance you propose does not need legislation, rather an absence of proscribing legislation! SSM (or the associated State legal framework ) may be an exception given that framework is established by legislation.

I have thought some more on this.

You are of course right but there would be some good exceptions for enacting legislation positively supporting the purveyors of such abominations.

And that would be when those abominators, despiote decriminalisation and toleration, still become the target of minority groups.

This is where Church opponents have to be very careful. Should Church organisations, institutions or crusading individuals overly persecute or discriminate against such abominators … then these “Church” people run the risk of causing concerned States to positively and perhaps rightly legislate for the very matters that Church opponents oppose so as to afford the abominators some civil protection!

I do wonder if this has happened with both the abortion and homosexual debates in Southern Ireland. How else can we explain how civil law positively supportive of both issues arose so quickly in such a formerly staunch Catholic country but a generation ago.

 

[fisherman_carl]

When it comes to marriage law same sex marriage is not truly marriage. It doesn’t meet the criteria for marriage. So it is really a legal fiction. You can make it legal to declare yourself to be the president of mars, but that doesn’t make you the president of mars. You can make it legal to declare yourself to be a man when you are a woman, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are still a woman. Saying that you are legally a man does not change the fact that you are fundamentally and naturally a woman. It is similar to marriage. Marriage is fundamentally about procreation and family. Since same-sex relationships are fundamentally not about procreation and family then they do not meet the criteria for marriage.

Now, same sex couples could create all kinds of contracts and committed relationships with one another. No one is trying to take away their freedom to do so. (Even though it was illegal at one time). Nonetheless, such contracts could never have the same end or goal as marriage does, which is family. It is naturally impossible since procreation is naturally impossible.

When you live in a society that is largely secular I think people realize that you are going to have to pick and choose your battles, or prioritize your concerns. Abortion and certain contraceptives prematurely end human life. That is of much higher concern than same sex marriage, which is a legal fiction anyways, and not a true marriage, even if it has some elements of marriage. And no legalization or law can make it into a marriage, any more than a law could make a man into a woman. It just is not reality. Since it cannot fundamentally meet the end or goal of a marriage.

So I guess you could spend your time trying to make it illegal for a person to declare themselves the president of mars, a legal fiction. But you may find your time better served elsewhere. Dealing with the root of the issues may be more effective.

 

[rossum]

Now, same sex couples could create all kinds of contracts and committed relationships with one another. No one is trying to take away their freedom to do so. (Even though it was illegal at one time). Nonetheless, such contracts could never have the same end or goal as marriage does, which is family. It is naturally impossible since procreation is naturally impossible.

It is naturally impossible for a post-menopausal woman to have children. Are you saying that such an older woman should be refused marriage because she is no longer fertile? Infertility has never been a bar to Catholic marriage. You will need to find a better argument here. This one is very weak.

rossum

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When it comes to marriage law same sex marriage is not truly marriage. It doesn’t meet the criteria for marriage. So it is really a legal fiction. You can make it legal to declare yourself to be the president of mars, but that doesn’t make you the president of mars. You can make it legal to declare yourself to be a man when you are a woman, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are still a woman. Saying that you are legally a man does not change the fact that you are fundamentally and naturally a woman. It is similar to marriage. Marriage is fundamentally about procreation and family. Since same-sex relationships are fundamentally not about procreation and family then they do not meet the criteria for marriage.

Now, same sex couples could create all kinds of contracts and committed relationships with one another. No one is trying to take away their freedom to do so. (Even though it was illegal at one time). Nonetheless, such contracts could never have the same end or goal as marriage does, which is family. It is naturally impossible since procreation is naturally impossible.

When you live in a society that is largely secular I think people realize that you are going to have to pick and choose your battles, or prioritize your concerns. Abortion and certain contraceptives prematurely end human life. That is of much higher concern than same sex marriage, which is a legal fiction anyways, and not a true marriage, even if it has some elements of marriage. And no legalization or law can make it into a marriage, any more than a law could make a man into a woman. It just is not reality. Since it cannot fundamentally meet the end or goal of a marriage.

So I guess you could spend your time trying to make it illegal for a person to declare themselves the president of mars, a legal fiction. But you may find your time better served elsewhere. Dealing with the root of the issues may be more effective.

Perhaps you are a bit wooly on your definition of marriage.
The Church has defined it as being equally about procreating/rearing children and the good of the couples themselves.

Clearly a permanent same sex relationship, or indeed many other forms of stable relationship,
are capable of rearing children and supporting each other as a bonded loving personal couple. Various Cardinals have said as much. Such non procreative couples include the infertile and incapacitated and also Mary and Joseph.

Now obviously not all the elements of marriage are present in some of these examples. Just as the fullness of the Church is not to be found in Protestant religions. But they are worthy relationships in some limited fashion. Now if the normal meaning of legal marriage necessitates a man and a woman, then clearly SS unions can never be called marriages.
But I think that they may validly seek some other lesser legal vehicle to recognize the many marriage values that can exist in such limited yet permanent and faithfully intended relationships that may exist. Just as many Protestant religions are rightfully still called Christian churches even though the fullness of His Church subsists only in the Catholic Church.

 

[Rau]

…But I think that they may validly seek some other lesser legal vehicle to recognize the many marriage values that can exist in such limited yet permanent and faithfully intended relationships that may exist…

I agree entirely. However, I think there is (and for quite some time has been) zero chance of such every being conceded by those advocating for SSM.

Marriage is understood to be a sexual union. There would remain I believe disquiet with even a lesser legal vehicle if it too carried the implication that it was for a sexual union.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I agree entirely. However, I think there is (and for quite some time has been) zero chance of such every being conceded by those advocating for SSM.

Marriage is understood to be a sexual union. There would remain I believe disquiet with even a lesser legal vehicle if it too carried the implication that it was for a sexual union.

You are probably right.

The more vocal promiscuous section of the gay “community” has somewhat stickied the wicket for those quieter couples we all know about who have been lovingly together for years without fuss.

I think the gay “community” is still acting out a bit since decriminalisation which freedom is relatively recent really. Can’t blame them really, the whole issue has been repressed and pressure-cooked for centuries.

Hopefully over time the gay community will settle down more and enable homophobes to feel comfortable enough for rational progress on some of these issues.

 

[Rau]

You are probably right.

I vaguely recall (reading on CAF) that one of the arch-dioceses in US - perhaps Philadelphia - floated the idea of a legal framework oriented to mutual care and the like - but open to a wider set of “pairings”, and in such a manner that it carried no sexual implication.

 

[goout]

Perhaps you are a bit wooly on your definition of marriage.
The Church has defined it as being equally about procreating/rearing children and the good of the couples themselves.

Clearly a permanent same sex relationship, or indeed many other forms of stable relationship,
are capable of rearing children and supporting each other as a bonded loving personal couple. Various Cardinals have said as much. Such non procreative couples include the infertile and incapacitated and also Mary and Joseph.

Now obviously not all the elements of marriage are present in some of these examples. Just as the fullness of the Church is not to be found in Protestant religions. But they are worthy relationships in some limited fashion. Now if the normal meaning of legal marriage necessitates a man and a woman, then clearly SS unions can never be called marriages.
But I think that they may validly seek some other lesser legal vehicle to recognize the many marriage values that can exist in such limited yet permanent and faithfully intended relationships that may exist. Just as many Protestant religions are rightfully still called Christian churches even though the fullness of His Church subsists only in the Catholic Church.

But the reality is, the gay marriage agenda is not satisfied with an honest appraisal of same sex relationships and a concordant civil union. It wants everything that the word “marriage” entails. It wants society’s false admission that it is the same thing as marriage, when it is not.

Anything less than buying the whole lie is now discrimination or bigotry. At the agenda and policy making level, it’s not really about recognizing the good that exists in these relationships, it’s about destroying religion.

If it weren’t about destroying religion, we would have the “lesser legal vehicles” you refer to. But that’s not enough.
The irony is that since these rights are based on a lie, they will surely fall given enough time and the wrong leadership in this country.

You can’t build a house on quicksand and then be amazed when it crumbles.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But the reality is, the gay marriage agenda is not satisfied with an honest appraisal of same sex relationships and a concordant civil union. It wants everything that the word “marriage” entails. It wants society’s false admission that it is the same thing as marriage, when it is not.

Anything less than buying the whole lie is now discrimination or bigotry. At the agenda and policy making level, it’s not really about recognizing the good that exists in these relationships, it’s about destroying religion.

If it weren’t about destroying religion, we would have the “lesser legal vehicles” you refer to. But that’s not enough.
The irony is that since these rights are based on a lie, they will surely fall given enough time and the wrong leadership in this country.

You can’t build a house on quicksand and then be amazed when it crumbles.

I don’t believe there is a single identifiable unified world wide “gay agenda” that speaks for all such interested couples sorry.

 

[Rau]

I don’t believe there is a single identifiable unified world wide “gay agenda” that speaks for all such interested couples…

Of course that’s right. There would be a proportion of people would have accepted a “lesser” outcome (than SSM). I suspect they were far from the loudest voices though.

 

[goout]

I don’t believe there is a single identifiable unified world wide “gay agenda” that speaks for all such interested couples sorry.

Ok:shrug: