Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[PRmerger]

But you do base your idea of morality on what was written at the time.

No, Bradski. Morality is not specific to a particular religion. Burning people at the stake is wrong if you’re Catholic. And it’s wrong if you’re Protestant. And it’s wrong if you’re Jewish.

Our morality is not based on “what was written at the time.”

I discount that for the same reason I discount CC’s repetition of an 80 year old commentary on eugenics as a good basis for discussion regarding gay marriage.

That case was cited as an example only of what constitutes the immorality of gay so-called marriage.

It is, of course, not the basis for the immorality of it. That comes from reason, logic, biology, science, natural law and divine law.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have a problem with that. As you said, it influences, and should influence, everything you do.

Love you for that. I must admit I was expecting a snarky response about religion affecting the way we comb our hair.

So shame on me.

But I’d rather you didn’t insist that it should influence everything that I do.

Well,* truth* should influence everything that you do.

And if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you.

We don’t get to say, “Gravity affects Catholics, but it doesn’t have to affect atheists if they don’t believe in it.”

 

[PRmerger]

Laws aren’t set up to prevent people acting immorally.

Sure they are!

Perhaps what you mean is that laws aren’t meant to change the hearts of those who would commit an immoral act?

Of course, that is so. Legal protection cannot put the spirit of morality into the heart. That comes from God, (through the Church)

Laws are the floor of protection of society from human behavior. Religion is the ceiling.

They are there to protect people, period.

Agreed, (with a little disclaimer about the bolded part).

Yes, murder is immoral but there aren’t laws against it simply because it’s immoral.

You are correct.

If you disagree, then you’re going to have to explain why some things which you consider immoral are not illegal. Masturbation might be a good one.

I don’t believe that I’ve proposed that all immoral actions ought to be illegal.

As I’ve said, laws protect us from the floor of human behavior. It is beyond their pay grade to change what belongs to the heart.

And that would have to be in a secular society, otherwise we’re talking theocracies.

Sure.

You keep saying ‘we’ but that doesn’t include me or anyone else who doesn’t hold your particular religious views. It affects ‘you’ and others Catholics. And to deny that there are specifically ‘religious views’ is to deny the obvious.

Again, gravity affects everyone–Catholic or atheist.

Scientific laws = moral laws in this sense.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think we should clear things up here. The Skinner case was about sterilization, not marriage. Furthermore, the very phrase you quoted, “prisoners have the right to marry and procreate” is not in the text of the ruling at all. Your previous quote, “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” is in the ruling and is the only time the word ‘marriage’, ‘marry’, or ‘matrimony’ appears in the entire text. The phrase is, at best, incidental. The Court was not talking about marriage. Oklahoma’s sterilization law was not ruled unconstitutional because it took away the criminal’s right to marry. Instead the majority found that the sterilization punishment was applied inconsistently, the example the court uses is that larceners were sterilized but not embezzlers. Two concurring opinions overturn the law on the basis that the state had no compelling scientific evidence to show that criminality was a trait that could be passed to offspring.

Likewise, I could not find mention of procreation or offspring in the Lovings ruling.

Slavonic,

I hope you are reading your catechism. When you read case law…the citing has to be referenced…and in Loving vs Virginia the right to marry references Skinner vs Oklahoma…

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State’s police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

and

Skinner vs Oklahoma involved the right to marry and procreate…

and you are correct…sterilization was not applying marriage as the right because to be sterile and marry obviates the right to marry and procreate.

Please speak to you confessor about your wayward opinions on homosexual unions.

 

[PRmerger]

You keep saying ‘we’ but that doesn’t include me or anyone else who doesn’t hold your particular religious views.

That’s like saying to your 1st grade teacher, “You keep saying 2 + 2 = 4 but I don’t believe that, and when you say ‘we know that 2 + 2 = 4’ you ought to exclude me. I don’t believe it to be true.”

It affects ‘you’ and others Catholics. And to deny that there are specifically ‘religious views’ is to deny the obvious.

To say that there are religious views, and they ought to be kept out of the legal system, is to have an impoverished understanding of religious views, as they are a function of the natural law.

Reflects ‘religious views?

Yes. For example: “it is illegal to murder” reflects the religious view that each person is made in the image and likeness of God.

Civil Law ‘reflects’ certain religious views because those views are pretty much universal.

Sure.

They are not based on religious views.

Sure they are.

Each of us lives in a secular society.

which has been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian ideals.

And I’d like to think that neither of us would like to impose our views on others.

And yet there’s a great big push for some folks to impose their views on me. And I don’t like it at all.

We should use the best arguments available and let society decide.

Well, yes and no.

Society is not the arbiter of morality.

For is it not possible for society to support depraved and immoral behavior? What then does an atheist do if he lives in a society that, say, sanctions child sacrifice?

 

[Bradski]

What we are talking about, Bradski, when we talk about “religious views” are religious truths. Or, Truths. Thus, they apply to all. Whether you are an atheist or a Muslim, or a Bahai or a Catholic, truth is truth.

You were correct when you classed them as religious truths. I’m sure that Muslim Truths (Jesus was just a prophet) or Hindi truths (multiple gods) don’t apply to you equally as they don’t apply to me. Therefore ‘Religious Truths’ do not apply to all. Some things that we all believe – do not kill, do not steal, are not religious truths per se but are universally accepted for reasons totally unassociated with religion so you cannot claim them as religious truths and certainly not Christian Truths.

For example, killing your spouse isn’t wrong if you’re a Catholic but permissible if you’re an atheist. Using heroin isn’t wrong if you’re Muslim but is moral if you’re a Catholic. Moral truth is religious truth is legal truth is Truth.

You’re using what I classed above as Universal Truths and they co-oincide with some religious beliefs. That’s all (although I wouldn’t class taking heroin as immoral, no more than having a few beers).

No, Bradski. Morality is not specific to a particular religion. Burning people at the stake is wrong if you’re Catholic. And it’s wrong if you’re Protestant. And it’s wrong if you’re Jewish.

Again, universal truths. But you’re not answering the question of what you class as immoral and which I wouldn’t. Contraception and masturbation for example. They’re wrong if you’re a Catholic and not if you’re an atheist.

Our morality is not based on “what was written at the time.”

Then maybe we need a rule that says no quoting ancient scripture to prove a point.

Love you for that. I must admit I was expecting a snarky response about religion affecting the way we comb our hair. So shame on me.

No. Shame on the ‘old’ Bradski who couldn’t post a thing without being ‘snarky’. It never seemed to get me anywhere so I’ve tried to avoid it. If you’re having a decent conversation, then it would be rude to get in a few cheap shots (that’s not to say they don’t sneak in under the radar ocassionally).

Well,* truth* should influence everything that you do. And if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you. We don’t get to say, “Gravity affects Catholics, but it doesn’t have to affect atheists if they don’t believe in it.”

Well, yes. Grass is green and the Pope is a Catholic. There are obviously things that are true whether we believe them or not. But ‘Contraception is wrong’ is True for you, but not for me (and not for most Catholic women either). Likewise with gay marriage, to get back on track.

I don’t believe that I’ve proposed that all immoral actions ought to be illegal.

OK, we’ll go with that, so you can forget the question re contraception. I was going on this quote:

Laws do indeed legislate morality.

But you did agree with me that murder wasn’t illegal because it was immoral. So I think that we’re in agreement that just because someone classes something as immoral, it doesn’t necessarily lead to illegality and that the law, whilst making some acts illegal, does not do so on the basis of morality.

I think that’s an important point, because going on from what’s been discussed above, your idea of morality is, in some cases at least, different to mine. And your idea of morality is based (how could it not be) on your religious beliefs. As you said:

we use our religious views to influence everything we do…

With respect, I don’t want some of your religious views influencing everything I do…

 

[PRmerger]

You were correct when you classed them as religious truths. I’m sure that Muslim Truths (Jesus was just a prophet) or Hindi truths (multiple gods) don’t apply to you equally as they don’t apply to me.

Ah, I see what you mean. You are of the position that some things may be true for some but not for others?

That it may be true for Muslims to believe that Jesus is only a prophet, but also true for Christians that Jesus is Divine?

Or are you of the position that there are Absolute Truths: in your case you would proclaim: Jesus was NOT God. That is true for all.

Before we go further I need to understand if you are a moral relativist or believe in an Absolute Truth.

 

[Bradski]

To say that there are religious views, and they ought to be kept out of the legal system, is to have an impoverished understanding of religious views, as they are a function of the natural law.

OK, we’ll go with Sharia Law and use some of the concepts therein to fine tune our laws regarding theft and marriage perhaps.

For example: “it is illegal to murder” reflects the religious view that each person is made in the image and likeness of God.

Yes, it reflects that view. Of that there is no doubt. But murder is not illegal ‘because’ of that.

…which has been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian ideals.

No problem with that. But a law isn’t law because it has to conform to a Christian view of morality. Otherwise…theocracy.

And yet there’s a great big push for some folks to impose their views on me. And I don’t like it at all.

This is a tough one. We could both use the same complaint. My argument is that religious matters should be decided solely by those in that particular religion. So if you don’t want to use contraception and don’t want gay people married in your church, there’s no problem. But if it’s a secular matter, then it’s a different matter.

And herein lies the problem with gay marriage. You believe marriage to be a religious matter and others, me included, don’t. You see an overlap whereas I don’t.

Society is not the arbiter of morality.

No. that’s a personal decision we all have to reach individually.

For is it not possible for society to support depraved and immoral behavior? What then does an atheist do if he lives in a society that, say, sanctions child sacrifice?

Probably stand as a member for the ‘Stop Child Sacrifice’ party.

 

[Bradski]

Ah, I see what you mean. You are of the position that some things may be true for some but not for others? That it may be true for Muslims to believe that Jesus is only a prophet, but also true for Christians that Jesus is Divine?

Or are you of the position that there are Absolute Truths: in your case you would proclaim: Jesus was NOT God. That is the true for all.

Before we go further I need to understand if you are a moral relativist or believe in an Absolute Truth.

Hey, PR, I’ve got work to do. Stop replying can’t ya?

I hate these catch-all classifications, but yes, you could in this case call me a relativist. Some things are true for Muslims (Jesus was a prophet), but not for you (He was divine). I thought examples like that were obvious. Well, they are to me.

So I wouldn’t claim that Jesus was NOT God - it’s just not True for me. Although I accept that it’s true for you.

 

[markeverett49]

This is a tough one. We could both use the same complaint. My argument is that religious matters should be decided solely by those in that particular religion. So if you don’t want to use contraception and don’t want gay people married in your church, there’s no problem. But if it’s a secular matter, then it’s a different matter. .

Truth is truth, whether discerned (or promulgated) by a theist, atheist, or secularist. Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God (-his ‘Unmoved Mover’) is a solid argument even though we regard him as a secular thinker. Yet if a theist makes the same argument—David Conway’s “The Rediscovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Quest of Sophia” argues that Aristotle’s argument is still perfectly sound—would you dismiss it because he is a theist?

When you likened natural law to Sharia you exhibited a gross misunderstanding of what natural law is and the long history of its appeal to SECULAR thinkers as well as religious ones.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, PR, I’ve got work to do. Stop replying can’t ya?

I hate these catch-all classifications, but yes, you could in this case call me a relativist. Some things are true for Muslims (Jesus was a prophet), but not for you (He was divine). I thought examples like that were obvious. Well, they are to me.

So I wouldn’t claim that Jesus was NOT God - it’s just not True for me. Although I accept that it’s true for you.

Fair enough. I will proceed in this dialogue with this knowledge in the back of my mind.

Get to work!

 

[Bradski]

Truth is truth, whether discerned (or promulgated) by a theist, atheist, or secularist. David Conway…argues that Aristotle’s argument is still perfectly sound—would you dismiss it because he is a theist?

Maybe check the post above. What’s True for someone else is not necessarily True for me. Whether he is an atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist, Dave Conway or Aristotle.

When you likened natural law to Sharia you exhibited a gross misunderstanding of what natural law is and the long history of its appeal to SECULAR thinkers as well as religious ones.

I don’t believe Natural Law was mentioned. I was suggesting that if religious views should have an influence on Civil Law, then why should we restrict it to Christian views? Especially in a secular society.

 

[Slavonic]

Slavonic,

I hope you are reading your catechism. When you read case law…the citing has to be referenced…and in Loving vs Virginia the right to marry references Skinner vs Oklahoma…

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1

and

Skinner vs Oklahoma involved the right to marry and procreate…

and you are correct…sterilization was not applying marriage as the right because to be sterile and marry obviates the right to marry and procreate.

Please speak to you confessor about your wayward opinions on homosexual unions.

Then why is marriage mentioned only once in passing in the Skinner opinion if marriage is such an important part of it?

On this very forum it has been discussed that sterility does not prevent a couple from marrying. And sterile people are not prevented form entering into marriages. So forced sterilization, as was the subject of the Skinner case, never prevented anyone from marrying at least legally speaking. The right to marriage and procreation, taking for granted that they exist, are distinct only happen to overlap when a married couple procreates.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Far too much time can be wasted on talking about relativism.

But then again, someone will certainly disagree.

hmmmm

After all, the OP does acknowledge that there are social issues surrounding Gay marriage.

But nothing else can or will be established, because its all relative.

Sorry, I’ll get lost now…:

 

[CopticChristian]

Then why is marriage mentioned only once in passing in the Skinner opinion if marriage is such an important part of it?

On this very forum it has been discussed that sterility does not prevent a couple from marrying. And sterile people are not prevented form entering into marriages. So forced sterilization, as was the subject of the Skinner case, never prevented anyone from marrying at least legally speaking. The right to marriage and procreation, taking for granted that they exist, are distinct only happen to overlap when a married couple procreates.

Slavonic,

As a Byzantine Catholic why do you oppose the teaching of the Church?

 

[Elizabeth502]

What’s True for someone else is not necessarily True for me.

Are the physical laws of the universe also “not necessarily True” for you, while True for “someone else?” Many of the laws on which scientists operate are not necessarily verifiable in the strictest sense of the word – i.e., they can’t all be verified with our senses. Scientists operate on faith in their own hypotheses all the time, sometimes even before those hypotheses are sufficiently tested. There are many principles which are considered permanent over time, and therefore “true.”

What about the universal moral laws, such as personal wrongdoing which produces innate guilt and shame, across many civilizations, eras, cultures? (For example, murder; for example, theft; for example, lies. Etc.)

Truth has very little value if it is not constant. A fluctuating “truth” empties the word of its meaning. Truth is fixed, or it is something else entirely – perception, opinion, speculation.

 

[RobbyS]

Robby,

Then the “gay” couple should commit without any intent to fake and reject any qualification for any privelege or entitlement from the state. That would be the noble way to go and would satisfy everyone. There will be no redistribution as there is no cause to be had.

Well, that would be noble, but rare. No more than the affirmation of lasting friendship. I doubt it would be popular.

 

[RobbyS]

Slavonic,

As a Byzantine Catholic why do you oppose the teaching of the Church?

He argues that homosexual relations have some natural objective. But sex between two men has no more result than a man’s sex with a dummy. Sterility is a disability, like a paralysis making a man unable to walk.

 

[RobbyS]

Hey, PR, I’ve got work to do. Stop replying can’t ya?

I hate these catch-all classifications, but yes, you could in this case call me a relativist. Some things are true for Muslims (Jesus was a prophet), but not for you (He was divine). I thought examples like that were obvious. Well, they are to me.

So I wouldn’t claim that Jesus was NOT God - it’s just not True for me. Although I accept that it’s true for you.

Truth is what exists. If Jesus is divine, then he is divine, no matter what you and I think about it.

 

[RobbyS]

Maybe check the post above. What’s True for someone else is not necessarily True for me. Whether he is an atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist, Dave Conway or Aristotle.

I don’t believe Natural Law was mentioned. I was suggesting that if religious views should have an influence on Civil Law, then why should we restrict it to Christian views? Especially in a secular society.

Let us start with the fact: Christian beliefs have an enormous influence on Civil Law. Muslim or Hindu beliefs, almost none. Weber even held that capitalism was shaped by the “Puritan ethic.” The notion of equity in our court system comes to us from the Church, which is why the Lord Chancellor was for a long-time a clergymen. A worldly man such as John D. Rockefeller owed much to the fact that he was the kind to teach a Baptist Sunday school class. The asceticism that shaped his business life, prompted him to modest living despite great wealth came from his religious beliefs. Now, a Commodore Vanderbilt’s motivations were quite different, but his business success required him, nonetheless to conform to the same model, at least to a degree. The old saying is that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.