Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[SgtSchultz]

Note that it’s not objectively right, even for me. As I said, you have to clarify it if you want to be specific. So the right becomes relative to the situation. Not shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater is the usual example.

Okay, so to clarify, you’re saying that freedom of speech, within reason and depending on context and circumstances, is “absolute”?

I am curious now just from an academic standpoint, well beyond and separate from the context of this thread, but how can something which is absolute have qualifiers attached to it?

 

[Bradski]

Okay, so to clarify, you’re saying that freedom of speech, within reason and depending on context and circumstances, is “absolute”?

I am curious now just from an academic standpoint, well beyond and separate from the context of this thread, but how can something which is absolute have qualifiers attached to it?

I’m using it in the sense of there being no uncertainty. That it’s a concept about which I have no doubt. If the question had been put: ‘Do you believe in freedom of speech?’ then (in the same sense of the word), I would probably have said: ‘Absolutely…with obvious certain exceptions’. I don’t think that would have been misunderstood.

If you took it to mean ‘without qualification’, then I am at fault.

 

[PRmerger]

I said: Yes. Meaning that I see it as an absolute. It is absolutely true for me. It’s a basic human right as I perceive it.

If you had asked: Is the right of free speech an abolute.

I would have said: Yes, it is for me.

And yet here you are proclaiming that you would fight for the right *for someone else *to have this right?

That really sounds like you’re saying that you believe it’s true for others as well. Not “just for me”.

And you would be trying to impose your belief in the right to free speech upon others, yes? (Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful, as I said, that you would stand up for the rights of Christians, but it certainly stands in contrast to your declaration that you are a moral relativitist!)

If you truly believed that “the right of free speech is true just for me” then you ought not impose that view on others–millions of others, to be specific.

 

[Bradski]

And yet here you are proclaiming that you would fight for the right *for someone else *to have this right?

That really sounds like you’re saying that you believe it’s true for others as well. Not “just for me”.

And you would be trying to impose your belief in the right to free speech upon others, yes?

I think that we’re misunderstanding each other somewhere.

Some people might want to restrict free speech. They would say that free speech is not a right. As much as I would disagree with them and as perverse as it sounds, I would support their right to say it.

I might then go on to explain to them that the very right that they would deny (generally to others) is the very right they are utilising to make their point. I wouldn’t describe that as imposing my belief upon them as you described. Rather I would be trying to convince them of the error of their ways.

Similarly, and back on track, I don’t want to impose my views on you. I would rather convince you that I’m right. However, as much as I am convinced that allowing gay marriage would not be an imposition on you, I believe that you think it would.

I don’t see a way around that except to say that I wouldn’t support churches having to perform gay marriages and you can still class a marriage as between a man and a woman. That’s how they work it in the UK. The Church of England has the same wording, but the state says it’s between two people. You can get married in a civil or religious ceremony and they’re equally valid.

You’d think that that would be an acceptable answer to the problem, but the C of E still complains. As is their right, but it seems churlish to me.

And if Coptic is reading this, I’d like to follow through on those Canadian problems.

 

[markeverett49]

I think it is a mistake to liken a right such as freedom of speech (-guaranteed by the US Constitution) what what is called “the right to marry.” The Constitution doesn’t speak of a right to marry. Marriage is a licensed activity (-practicing medicine, cutting hair, driving a car and many other activities require a license.) People apply for marriage licenses but not everyone who applies gets one.

 

[Bradski]

I think it is a mistake to liken a right such as freedom of speech (-guaranteed by the US Constitution) what what is called "the right to marry.

It wasn’t really being used as such. Freedom of speech came up in regard to whether one supported the Catholic Church’s right to teach its members that it believed the homosexual act to be immoral.

 

[Corki]

Similarly, and back on track, I don’t want to impose my views on you. I would rather convince you that I’m right. However, as much as I am convinced that allowing gay marriage would not be an imposition on you, I believe that you think it would.

The problem I usually have with the discussion is that people try to say that same-sex marriage will not be an imposition on me or others. That’s just lying. Same-sex marriage has already been an imposition on me and others. It would be more valid if SSM supporters would try to rationalize that the imposition and harm that SSM will and has done is less than their perceived benefit. To deny the harm entirely just makes the argument weaker.

I don’t see a way around that except to say that I wouldn’t support churches having to perform gay marriages and you can still class a marriage as between a man and a woman. That’s how they work it in the UK. The Church of England has the same wording, but the state says it’s between two people. You can get married in a civil or religious ceremony and they’re equally valid.

You’d think that that would be an acceptable answer to the problem, but the C of E still complains. As is their right, but it seems churlish to me.

But the UK example doesn’t work. It’s not just two parallel views of marriage. Unless a person embraces the “two people” paradigm, they are treated by the government as if they were criminals. It’s a reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell”. It’s ok if you want to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but don’t let anyone know that you believe that or there will be negative consequences. Case in point, the couple that lost their authorization to foster children because they would not deny their religious beliefs on marriage.

 

[markeverett49]

It wasn’t really being used as such. Freedom of speech came up in regard to whether one supported the Catholic Church’s right to teach its members that it believed the homosexual act to be immoral.

If the Church’s teaching is redefined as ‘hate speech,’ then it can run afoul of the law and an appeal to ‘freedom of speech’ will lose.

 

[Bradski]

The problem I usually have with the discussion is that people try to say that same-sex marriage will not be an imposition on me or others. That’s just lying. Same-sex marriage has already been an imposition on me and others.

Can you give some examples, Corki?

But the UK example doesn’t work. It’s not just two parallel views of marriage. Unless a person embraces the “two people” paradigm, they are treated by the government as if they were criminals.

As far as I can see, it is two parallel views. The C of E views marriage as between a man and a woman and the government, despite classing it as between two people, have emphasised that the C of E is entirely within its rights to continue marrying people with that view.

And I can’t see that the government would treat people as criminal if they believe it should be between two people as that is the government’s own view. Could you give me some examples of where they have been treated as such?

Case in point, the couple that lost their authorization to foster children because they would not deny their religious beliefs on marriage.

If this is the case in Derby, you should note that:

The case was the latest to be brought by conservative evangelicals, led by the Christian Legal Centre, over their supporters’ right to discriminate specifically against gay people and not be bound by equality regulations. All the cases have so far been lost.

…new rules applicable since 2007 meant the couple had to satisfy a different series of guidelines this time. These included not teaching children homosexuality was wrong. As practising Christians they said they felt they could not comply.

If the Church’s teaching is redefined as ‘hate speech,’ then it can run afoul of the law and an appeal to ‘freedom of speech’ will lose.

If that happens, then I’ll help you defend your Church’s right to teach morality, within the church, as best it sees fit.

 

[markeverett49]

If that happens, then I’ll help you defend your Church’s right to teach morality, within the church, as best it sees fit.

That’s nice to know but it’s no guarantee of success. (When you say ‘within the church’ does that include parish schools and Catholic universities?)

 

[PRmerger]

Similarly, and back on track, I don’t want to impose my views on you. I would rather convince you that I’m right.

Of course.

And I hope that you extend that same courtesy (or “right”) to the Catholic Church. For that is what she is doing: trying to convince society that she’s right.

 

[PRmerger]

But let’s say that someone says: ‘White people are superior to black people’. That is not a fact as it stands. It is an opinion. A belief. It’s right for them and it doesn’t matter how objectionable I feel their opinion is, I can’t tell them what to believe. I can’t make their decision for them.

If they went a step further and said: ‘White people are superior to black people because x, y and z’ then we have something to discuss. If x, y and z are matters that we both agree are specific facts and not just further opinion, then I can point out that his facts are possibly wrong and if he accepts that he’s based his decision on incorrect information, then maybe he’ll change his mind. You’d expect a reasonable person to do so.

True, this.

And this paradigm is nothing more and nothing less than what we Catholics are doing here on the CAFs, and in society at large.

As to gay marriage, if the Church says that it’s immoral, then I’m going to treat that as opinion. The reasons or the facts of the matter as the church sees them and that it brings to the table are not ones that I can accept. It’s not that I think that they’re ‘wrong’, but they’re based on a religious belief to which I don’t subscribe. So as opinion (I can’t treat it any other way), I can’t say that it’s wrong for you.

Excellent.

Then you ought not oppose our right to make gay “marriage” illegal. As you say, it’s not wrong for us to proclaim this truth.

However, if we take it a step further again and we start being specific and you say: ‘Gay marriage is wrong because of x, y and z’, then as long as x, y and z aren’t religious beliefs but are specific facts which we both agree are valid to the argument, then I’m going to argue the case from my side and hope to prove you wrong.

I don’t understand this.

Firstly, I don’t believe that any Catholic argues against gay “marriage” from a purely religious POV.

And even if we did, why would you oppose that? That would be like you, an English major, telling me, a Math major, “You can try to tell me why that bridge is sturdy, but you can’t use Math to do it.”

 

[Bradski]

That’s nice to know but it’s no guarantee of success. (When you say ‘within the church’ does that include parish schools and Catholic universities?)

Good question. Tough one to answer.

I was at a christening on Sunday (my daughter’s in-laws are Catholic and their grandson was being christened) and there were pamphlets in the church foyer decrying gay marriage. OK, I mentally rolled my eyes, but I thought – no, this is OK. It’s their church, their belief. I have no reason to complain about this.

A parish school? It may mean something different to you, but we have Catholic schools in Australia which are private and separate from the government provided public schools. Maybe this is the same. My wife and I sent both my son and my daughter to local Catholic schools. I know for a fact that homosexuality was not brought up in the time that they spent there.

If it had been, in that they were taught that it was a sin, then I don’t think that I would have any right to complain. You have to accept the ‘house rules’. But my children and their peers would have been astonished that it had been brought up in the first place – so maybe the schools are different here than they are in the US.

Catholic Universities? Again, tough call for me. But I look upon universities as a place where people can, if not must, challenge the status quo. Unis are a place where you are taught to question. I can’t imagine anything but a robust debate if sexuality was brought up in whatever context.

Then you ought not oppose our right to make gay “marriage” illegal. As you say, it’s not wrong for us to proclaim this truth.

I will not oppose your right to believe what you will. But to make something illegal is a secular matter. We are now outside of the sphere of religious beliefs and if you want to maintain a secular law, or change it, then you need to make secular arguments.

Firstly, I don’t believe that any Catholic argues against gay “marriage” from a purely religious POV.

Not purely religious, no. But the main thrust of the argument is always, and I mean always, that it is immoral. That it is immoral specifically from a Christian perspective. That holds no sway in secular matters.

And even if we did, why would you oppose that? That would be like you, an English major, telling me, a Math major, “You can try to tell me why that bridge is sturdy, but you can’t use Math to do it.”

There is, and must remain, a separation of church and state. Religious beliefs must have no influence on secular laws. If we start saying that a specifically Christian, or even Catholic belief (or a Muslim or a Hindu belief) must be incorporated into law, then we have no argument against countries that incorporate their religious beliefs into law. We would be advocating a theocracy. Neither of us wants to do that.

Here’s your analogy again. The maths major says that the bridge (our system of law) has been built on mathematical (secular) concepts. If you want to change the design, then you have to use mathematical concepts as well. You can’t use literary criticism (religious beliefs) to do so. There is no connection.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
There is, and must remain, a separation of church and state. Religious beliefs must have no influence on secular laws. If we start saying that a specifically Christian, or even Catholic belief (or a Muslim or a Hindu belief) must be incorporated into law, then we have no argument against countries that incorporate their religious beliefs into law. We would be advocating a theocracy.

That is a misunderstanding of separation of church and state. To use a succinct response by another poster in this forum,

The “separation” concept refers to the absence of a specific religion identified with or affiliated with the government, which we don’t have in this country, and which does not preclude Catholics, Mormons, JW’s and whoever, from stating their views on morality and on legislative proposals.

,

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is, and must remain, a separation of church and state. Religious beliefs must have no influence on secular laws.

That is NOT a principle of the U.S. Constitution. Church is only separated from State in that the State does not officially endorse/sponsor/identify with any particular religion. That has zero to do with the word and the fact of influence.

Please learn constitutional history.

Gee, ISOG, I see we cross-posted, and you may even have quoted Yours Truly.

 

[Bradski]

TPlease learn constitutional history.

Whose? You must have assumed that I was talking about the American Constitution. We’re not all Americans on the forum, although I’ve discussed your Constitution enough over the years to know quite a lot about it (Treaty of Tripoli etc).

I was talking about a general concept, not the specifics of either the American or the Australian version (which is quite similar to yours). I personally believe that they should be entirely separate whatever the interpretations of whatever constitution you’d prefer to quote (for reasons I don’t mind discussing).

So I appreciate and understand your interpretation of your constitiution, but in this case at least, it is not relevant as I’m not basing my statement on said constitution.

 

[Faithdancer]

True, this.
Firstly, I don’t believe that any Catholic argues against gay “marriage” from a purely religious POV.

I don’t argue against celibate persons with a same sex orientation being members of the Church. I do argue against their being married in the Church, ever. And I do feel this way from a religious point of view, i.e. the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, which is reserved for a man and a woman.**

 

[Acrossthedesert]

" if you want to corrupt a culture, first corrupt the language."

The proposition: Gay marriage is a matter of equality and therefore, gays should be allowed to attain a marriage license.

1. What does it mean to be equal in America? We are not physically equal, nor socially, nor economically. We are not equal in rights; Some justly have a right to certain properties they have purchased. People are "equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," We have a natural right to speak, to religion, to assemble etc.
2. Do homosexuals have a natural right to a marriage licence? Well since a license is by very definition a man made provision, I would say NO. This is a right granted by man, and therefore in our case by the We the People.
3. So why then do we have marriage licenses and the associated benefits? The People (our forefathers) decide they wanted to encourage/promote marriage because of their own Christian beliefs.
4. So, if you vote for gay marriage, you are choosing to encourage and promote homosexual activity. You are acting contrary to the mandates of your Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law. In the words of the poignent Sponge Bob -“Good luck with that”

 

[Faithdancer]

" if you want to corrupt a culture, first corrupt the language."

The proposition: Gay marriage is a matter of equality and therefore, gays should be allowed to attain a marriage license.

1. What does it mean to be equal in America? We are not physically equal, nor socially, nor economically. We are not equal in rights; Some justly have a right to certain properties they have purchased. People are "equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," We have a natural right to speak, to religion, to assemble etc.
2. Do homosexuals have a natural right to a marriage licence? Well since a license is by very definition a man made provision, I would say NO. This is a right granted by man, and therefore in our case by the We the People.
3. So why then do we have marriage licenses and the associated benefits? The People (our forefathers) decide they wanted to encourage/promote marriage because of their own Christian beliefs.
4. So, if you vote for gay marriage, you are choosing to encourage and promote homosexual activity. You are acting contrary to the mandates of your Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law. In the words of the poignent Sponge Bob -“Good luck with that”

 

[Bradski]

I do argue against their being married in the Church, ever. And I do feel this way from a religious point of view.

PR, I take no pleasure in confirming my earlier statement.