Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[Bradski]

You must recall that the right to “Marriage” or “to Marry” is embedded in the law…

Skinner vs Oklahoma…that says that the right to marry is linked to procreation. It clearly states that the “right to marry **AND **procreate” is a right…you are going to have a stiff challenge to unimbed the word AND from the right to marry…and this is not a religous declaration…it is case law…

There is no right to marry, according to case law, that is not tied to the right to Marry and Procreate…get over it…

The one is not dependant on the other. You can be married without a problem if you are a paraplegic and not able to perform sexual intercourse. It’s only the Catholic Church which would not recognise such a marriage.

The law has no interest on whether you can procreate or not either inside or outside of marriage. It’s a religious view only. To use the fact that a gay couple cannot conceive and suggest that becuase of that they cannot marry is itself simply a religious view. That has no bearing on the legal definition of marriage.

In the case you mentioned it says that if you already have the abilitly to do have children, it is your right that no-one is allowed to take that away. That is, no forced sterilisation. Which sounds reasonable to me and presumably to you as well.

 

[CopticChristian]

The one is not dependant on the other. You can be married without a problem if you are a paraplegic and not able to perform sexual intercourse. It’s only the Catholic Church which would not recognise such a marriage.

The law has no interest on whether you can procreate or not either inside or outside of marriage. It’s a religious view only. To use the fact that a gay couple cannot conceive and suggest that becuase of that they cannot marry is itself simply a religious view. That has no bearing on the legal definition of marriage.

In the case you mentioned it says that if you already have the abilitly to do have children, it is your right that no-one is allowed to take that away. That is, no forced sterilisation. Which sounds reasonable to me and presumably to you as well.

Brad,

Then you are blind, deaf or unable to understand that the sterilization imposition and removal of that imposition was inherent in the right to marry. To be sterilized before leaving prison for fear of transmitting the criminal gene was wrong and it was stated that “prisoners have the right to marry and procreate”…while they were sterile they had the right to marry, and the law declared that right as part and parcel of procreation, and if you recall this is the citation for the right to marry that was cited by Loving vs Virginia…nice try…

 

[PRmerger]

The one is not dependant on the other. You can be married without a problem if you are a paraplegic and not able to perform sexual intercourse. It’s only the Catholic Church which would not recognise such a marriage.

And since we’re on a Catholic forum, what the CC recognizes is of great import, no?

The law has no interest on whether you can procreate or not either inside or outside of marriage. It’s a religious view only. To use the fact that a gay couple cannot conceive and suggest that becuase of that they cannot marry is itself simply a religious view. That has no bearing on the legal definition of marriage.

What we are concerned here with is truth, not merely legality.

And the truth is, if the marital act is not ordered towards unity and procreation, it is not a moral act. And therefore ought not be sanctioned by the state.

In the case you mentioned it says that if you already have the abilitly to do have children, it is your right that no-one is allowed to take that away. That is, no forced sterilisation. Which sounds reasonable to me and presumably to you as well.

Indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

To use the fact that a gay couple cannot conceive and suggest that becuase of that they cannot marry is itself simply a religious view.

This is an incorrect explication of the religious view against homosexual unions (at least, the Catholic view).

We do not view homosexual marriage as immoral because the gay couple cannot conceive.

As if!

We view homosexual marriage as immoral because it is not ordered towards procreation.

It is a distinction that must be noted in order to understand the Church’s objection towards homosexual unions.

 

[PRmerger]

80 year old lesbians and 80 year old gay men should come home to the Catholic Church like all sinners.

 

[Bradski]

…it was stated that “prisoners have the right to marry and procreate”…

They also have the right to marry and keep chickens, but I don’t think that the one would be dependent on the other. If you want to believe that they are in the quote above, then you are free to do so. I will respectfully disagree.

And since we’re on a Catholic forum, what the CC recognizes is of great import, no? What we are concerned here with is truth, not merely legality.

Indeed. Within this forum and within the Church it is very important. And I don’t have time for anyone who argues that you should not be able to state your case with all the arguments at your disposal. If you want to argue them as a Catholic and have Catholics accept them as ‘Truth’ as opposed to just the legal aspects, then who is to deny you that right?

But if you want to argue them as legal matters to influence laws to which we must all obey, then you must use legal arguments and not religious ones.

And the truth is, if the marital act is not ordered towards unity and procreation, it is not a moral act. And therefore ought not be sanctioned by the state.

But the state has no interest in morality per se. Especially in religious interpretations of morality (masturbation, contraception, sex outside marriage…all immoral, but last time I checked not illegal).

The first statement above is purely a religious view and does not, and cannot, carry any weight in a legal sense. Despite what CC seems to think, the law is not the slightest bit interested in your desire or ability to procreate when it comes to marriage.

 

[CopticChristian]

They also have the right to marry and keep chickens, but I don’t think that the one would be dependent on the other. If you want to believe that they are in the quote above, then you are free to do so. I will respectfully disagree.

Indeed. Within this forum and within the Church it is very important. And I don’t have time for anyone who argues that you should not be able to state your case with all the arguments at your disposal. If you want to argue them as a Catholic and have Catholics accept them as ‘Truth’ as opposed to just the legal aspects, then who is to deny you that right?

But if you want to argue them as legal matters to influence laws to which we must all obey, then you must use legal arguments and not religious ones.

But the state has no interest in morality per se. Especially in religious interpretations of morality (masturbation, contraception, sex outside marriage…all immoral, but last time I checked not illegal).

The first statement above is purely a religious view and does not, and cannot, carry any weight in a legal sense. Despite what CC seems to think, the law is not the slightest bit interested in your desire or ability to procreate when it comes to marriage.

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html

But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. **Marriage **and ****procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Read it and weep Brad…respectfully disagree as you weep…

 

[RobbyS]

Bradski,

I am not happy with any decision, however it comes about, that suggests that two homosexual/sodomite/lesbian/gay/ people are united in any union that is referred to as “marriage”, that would be a fair statement.

You must recall that the right to “Marriage” or “to Marry” is embedded in the law…

Skinner vs Oklahoma…that says that the right to marry is linked to procreation. It clearly states that the “right to marry **AND **procreate” is a right…you are going to have a stiff challenge to unimbed the word AND from the right to marry…and this is not a religous declaration…it is case law…

There is no right to marry, according to case law, that is not tied to the right to Marry and Procreate…get over it…

Right. Gays argue as if marriage law ere this great big religious conspiracy, when it is in fact based on a thousand years of social experience. Pragmatically, monogamy is better than the other forms of marriage, and it provides a stability to things that other forms do not. Then, all of a sudden, we have these wild experimenters who think we can simply dismiss all that. That’s a French approach to things.

 

[Bradski]

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html

Read it and weep Brad…respectfully disagree as you weep…

OK, fair enough. I can’t see how I can disagree when you reference a pre-war finding in Oklahoma discussing eugenics and the forced sterilisation of someone convicted of stealing chickens 86 years ago.

 

[CopticChristian]

OK, fair enough. I can’t see how I can disagree when you reference a pre-war finding in Oklahoma discussing eugenics and the forced sterilisation of someone convicted of stealing chickens 86 years ago.

Bradski,

And the Constitution and Declaration precede that as well…The Church on the other hand is over 2000 years old and as you might expect…it is good enough for me…

give me that old time religion, good enough for father and it’s good enough for me…

Has sodomy changed since inception or is it the same pre-war experience absent eugenics with or without chickens?

 

[Bradski]

The Church on the other hand is over 2000 years old and as you might expect…it is good enough for me… give me that old time religion, good enough for father and it’s good enough for me…

Who could argue. It was good enough for my father as well and his eldest son believes in a lot of what it teaches too.

Has sodomy changed since inception or is it the same pre-war experience absent eugenics with or without chickens?

I’ll assume that that’s a hypothetical question (primarily because I have no idea what you’re asking).

 

[90Domer]

I’m not Catholic but I actually do look down on adulterers a bit. In my opinion it is one of the worst things you can do.

I found this statement interesting because SSA relationships, to a far greater extent than others, are known to be either open relationships or hallmarked by the notion of some sort of expected unfaithfulness. In countless places I have read where the gay community openly admits this to be the case, and that the straight community is not used to this concept.

So, I think your notion of the gay “marriage” mimicking straight marriage in the lifelong love and commitment sense is myth.

 

[RobbyS]

I found this statement interesting because SSA relationships, to a far greater extent than others, are known to be either open relationships or hallmarked by the notion of some sort of expected unfaithfulness. In countless places I have read where the gay community openly admits this to be the case, and that the straight community is not used to this concept.

So, I think your notion of the gay “marriage” mimicking straight marriage in the lifelong love and commitment sense is myth.

More like faking such commitment in order to qualify for some privilege/ entitlement from the state. Gay marriage would cause a re-distribution of funding, with “x” percent going to gay couples.

 

[CopticChristian]

More like faking such commitment in order to qualify for some privilege/ entitlement from the state. Gay marriage would cause a re-distribution of funding, with “x” percent going to gay couples.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

But if you want to argue them as legal matters to influence laws to which we must all obey, then you must use legal arguments and not religious ones.

If you view religious arguments as simply making a few claims about God, rather than as a comprehensive view of the human person, then perhaps you would be correct.

However, you ought to know that Christians do not view their faith as simply an explication about what happened to a poor carpenter 2000 years ago.

We view our religion as a comprehensive commentary about the human condition. And, as such, we use our religious views to influence everything we do–it should affect, as Prof. Scott Hahn says, even the way we comb our hair!

But the state has no interest in morality per se.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Laws do indeed legislate morality.

Unless you consider murder to be amoral? Or theft?

The first statement above is purely a religious view and does not, and cannot, carry any weight in a legal sense

Again, this demonstrates an impoverished view of what religion is. There is no such thing as “religious views” and then the rest of how we live our lives. As religion deals with our understanding of human nature and our ultimate end, it affects every view we have–legal, moral, social, sexual…

Despite what CC seems to think, the law is not the slightest bit interested in your desire or ability to procreate when it comes to marriage.

Civil law governs human behavior, and as such it reflects religious views.

You ought not be imposing your atheistic religious views upon a society that is, indeed, religious.

 

[CopticChristian]

I found this statement interesting because SSA relationships, to a far greater extent than others, are known to be either open relationships or hallmarked by the notion of some sort of expected unfaithfulness. In countless places I have read where the gay community openly admits this to be the case, and that the straight community is not used to this concept.

So, I think your notion of the gay “marriage” mimicking straight marriage in the lifelong love and commitment sense is myth.

Domer,

There are numerous attempts by the homosexual to offer some sort of reasoning of logic for acceptance of "gay"relationships even giving reasons for “evolutionary” existence. Here you can see a homosexual reasoning a purpose for the “gay” relationship. It appeals to the tired, worn out parent needing help and then dissolves into the logic that marriage is not necessary to justify the “gay” relationship.

But one may derive similar goods from alternative family structures, such as those that are less nuclear and/or those which recognize same-sex attracted members of the family as providers of what some scientists believe to be their evolutionary purpose: an extra pair of hands to provide care giving for the children of siblings.

That means that those siblings may be better equipped to have a few additional children while the fact that the same-sex attracted care-giver is not producing children means, too, that the resources (food, shelter, etc.) which his or her children may have consumed can be more easily allocated (and without too much competition!) to the children that actually exist.

That is, these children will have advantages which those in other settings and lacking such caregivers will not have. Larger, multi-generational families living together increase these advantages. So would polygamous families. So would a well-run commune in which its members “didn’t believe in marriage.”

This sort of logic is an end run on your mind to accept “gay marriage” while eroding your concept of marriage…pretty sad logic if you ask me…

 

[markeverett49]

I’ve been re-reading philosopher Edward Feser’s book, “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism” and recommend it to “good Catholics” and atheists alike (-and everyone standing between those two poles.). Feser provides a solid primer in the thought of Aristotle and how medieval Scholastic thinkers refined it. However, since Aristotle was discarded by many modern philosophers, Catholics who appeal to solid philosophical arguments soon realize that the people they are talking to misunderstand those arguments. If people deny the reality of formal and final causes, we shouldn’t be surprised that they might think that a man “marrying” a man is the same thing as a man marrying a woman.

 

[Slavonic]

Brad,

Then you are blind, deaf or unable to understand that the sterilization imposition and removal of that imposition was inherent in the right to marry. To be sterilized before leaving prison for fear of transmitting the criminal gene was wrong and it was stated that “prisoners have the right to marry and procreate”…while they were sterile they had the right to marry, and the law declared that right as part and parcel of procreation, and if you recall this is the citation for the right to marry that was cited by Loving vs Virginia…nice try…

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.

 

[Bradski]

If you view religious arguments as simply making a few claims about God, rather than as a comprehensive view of the human person, then perhaps you would be correct.

I believe that religious views are specific to the individual religion and do not, in many cases, overlap with what I and many others believe - atheists and those of other faiths. So we cannot look at arguments that affect us all from a specifically religious viewpoint. Otherwise Sharia law and Talmudic law would carry equal weight in any argument of the legality of a particular matter.

However, you ought to know that Christians do not view their faith as simply an explication about what happened to a poor carpenter 2000 years ago.

But you do base your idea of morality 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.

We view our religion as a comprehensive commentary about the human condition. And, as such, we use our religious views to influence everything we do–it should affect, as Prof. Scott Hahn says, even the way we comb our hair!

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

Laws do indeed legislate morality. Unless you consider murder to be amoral? Or theft?

Laws aren’t set up to prevent people acting immorally. They are there to protect people, period. Yes, murder is immoral but there aren’t laws against it simply because it’s immoral. 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.

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

Again, this demonstrates an impoverished view of what religion is. There is no such thing as “religious views” and then the rest of how we live our lives. As religion deals with our understanding of human nature and our ultimate end, it affects every view we have–legal, moral, social, sexual…

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.

Civil law governs human behavior, and as such it reflects religious views.

Reflects ‘religious views?

There is no such thing as “religious views” and then the rest of how we live our lives.

Civil Law ‘reflects’ certain religious views because those views are pretty much universal. Don’t kill, don’t steal etc. They are not based on religious views. Other religious views are yours alone and are not reflected in civil law – see above.

You ought not be imposing your atheistic religious views upon a society that is, indeed, religious.

Each of us lives in a secular society. We don’t live in a theocracy. If you want to change the status quo or make an argument to have it remain as-is, then you therefore have to use secular arguments. And I’d like to think that neither of us would like to impose our views on others. We should use the best arguments available and let society decide.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that religious views are specific to the individual religion and do not, in many cases, overlap with what I and many others believe - atheists and those of other faiths.

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.

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.