Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[PRmerger]

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

Then I stand corrected.

I try never to argue from a “religious” POV when I’m in dialogue with a non-religious person. I guess it’s true that there are Catholics who do. It does not serve us well, IMHO, but I won’t argue against her right to do this.

Just as a Muslim will not be convincing when he tells me, “But the Koran tells us that women are inferior!”* therefore it must be so…

I don’t believe it’s constructive to quote the Scriptures, Magisterium, Aquinas, etc to you to support my POV, as it applies here.

*NB: No commentary is being made about Islam and its treatment of women. It’s only a hypothetical serving one purpose here.

 

[Bradski]

Just as a Muslim will not be convincing when he tells me, “But the Koran tells us that women are inferior!”* therefore it must be so…

I don’t believe it’s constructive to quote the Scriptures, Magisterium, Aquinas, etc to you to support my POV, as it applies here.

We may be on the same page. Opposite sides of that page, granted. But the the same page nevertheless.

 

[markeverett49]

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

This does not follow. ‘Separation of church and state’ means there shall be no state church. We don’t have state churches in the US. There is no “Church of America” like there is a Church of England.Separation of church and state does NOT mean that religious beliefs must have no influence on secular laws. When voting, people do not have to give reasons for why they vote as they do. This goes for members of Congress too.

For the record, some people SUPPORT same-sex marriage for reasons THEY regard as religious. I was in a Catholic seminary for a few years and several of my former classmates are now members of the the Episcopal church and they are strong “gay rights activists” and they INSIST that their views are based on—or at least a natural outgrowth of–their religious convictions.

Actually, any time some one appeals to ‘human rights’ they are appealing to a right that no government granted (and one that it would be wrong for any government to interfere with.) In a technical sense, this can be deemed a secular idea because many secularists hold it. But the idea has strong and deep religious roots. In this case----an appeal to human rights—some would count it as a secular idea and some as a religious idea.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

It’s very relevant, because marriage in any country is a social issue which affects the general welfare of the body politic, completely aside from religion. It is a public issue, not a private or religious issue. Therefore, in any country, constitutional issues very much pertain to legislation, and constitutional issues cannot be modified by whether you

personally believe that they should be entirely separate.

Personal beliefs do not alter constitutional principles. Constitutions are legally governing documents, whose interpretations and applications belong to legal entities.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s your analogy again. The maths major says that the bridge (our system of law) has been built on mathematical (secular) concepts

No, Bradski. The bridge has been built on mathematical (that is, objectively true) concepts. That does not translate into secular.

If you want to change the design, then you have to use mathematical concepts as well.

True, this. And that’s why I argue from what is objectively true.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

So here’s where your alleged “I’m a moral relativist” becomes problematic: you’re not really a moral relativist.

At least, you can’t be if you declare that you would fight for the right for the CC to declare homosexual “marriages” immoral.

For what you are doing is not saying, “It’s right for me to have free speech”. What you have declared, here on the CAFs, is that you believe it’s a right for millions of folks–Catholic folks (or I guess I should say billions of folks, right?) to have this right.

That, Bradski, is NOT moral relativism.

[SIGN]You are a moral absolutist. [/SIGN]

At least as it applies to free speech.

And one can see that anyone who is a man of integrity, who believes in moral principles, and will fight for the rights of others to enjoy these moral principles, is not a moral relativist.

Despite his protestations to the contrary.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

No, the expression of ideas is a public affair. You don’t have to like my ideas, but human beings have an “unalienable right” to speak. (a natural right).

John Paul II was very clear that we are Christians when we are Christians in the public square. And if you know of his adversity to Communism, you see how wonderfully he remained a follower of Jesus Christ.

STORY: The Communist Government prohibited the public display of religious emblems and images. So, Wojtyła (later called John Paul II) as Bishop held the customary adoration procession with an empty frame. No, he didn’t display the painting of the virgin Mary, but everyone knew what belonged in the frame carried on a platform full of flowers which had been done for centuries. In one small way, Wojtyła continued his faith and the faith of this community while dramatizing the stupidity of restricting ideas and PUBLIC displays of religion as a whole.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

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

Bradski,

I posted this earlier. Please reply to the more formal argument.

" 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]

1. 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”

Not much time this weekend, but a quick reply to this…

If I support gay marriage I’m not actively promoting any type of sexual activity. I have no interest in what people get up to in regard to sex. But I am definitely not acting contrary to the mandates of my church. Unless it’s the Church Of Brad.

 

[Faithdancer]

Then I stand corrected.

I try never to argue from a “religious” POV when I’m in dialogue with a non-religious person. I guess it’s true that there are Catholics who do. It does not serve us well, IMHO, but I won’t argue against her right to do this.

Just as a Muslim will not be convincing when he tells me, “But the Koran tells us that women are inferior!”* therefore it must be so…

I don’t believe it’s constructive to quote the Scriptures, Magisterium, Aquinas, etc to you to support my POV, as it applies here.

*NB: No commentary is being made about Islam and its treatment of women. It’s only a hypothetical serving one purpose here.

PRmerger, all due respect to you, but the name of this website being Catholic Answers Forums, I think it is most fitting and proper to respond to issues from the point of view of faith and the Magisterium. I am not a “lukewarm” Christian, and will not pretend to be, certainly not to appease those who mock the faith.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, all due respect to you, but the name of this website being Catholic Answers Forums, I think it is most fitting and proper to respond to issues from the point of view of faith and the Magisterium. I am not a “lukewarm” Christian, and will not pretend to be, certainly not to appease those who mock the faith.

Do you not agree, Faithdancer, that when you are in dialogue with a Muslim, that your quoting the Magisterium will not be a constructive means for convincing him of the truth of your beliefs?

Rather, would you not start with that which you agree: there is One God, for example?

You will not convince him that Jesus is divine because St. Paul says he is, right?

So even if this is a Catholic forum, it would not be to your benefit to quote the Epistles of St. Paul to a Muslim.

:nope:

 

[Faithdancer]

Do you not agree, Faithdancer, that when you are in dialogue with a Muslim, that your quoting the Magisterium will not be a constructive means for convincing him of the truth of your beliefs?

Rather, would you not start with that which you agree: there is One God, for example?

You will not convince him that Jesus is divine because St. Paul says he is, right?

So even if this is a Catholic forum, it would not be to your benefit to quote the Epistles of St. Paul to a Muslim.

:nope:

Oh, I’m not trying to convince an “atheist” of anything. There are many others whose evangelization is a more worthy and productive endeavor. And since the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope, the writings of St. Paul, the Gospels, etc. are truth, why not quote them? Using the logic of Aristotle and Aquinas doesn’t seem to go far, because the average “atheist” here doesn’t seem to have read more than a Wikipedia version of their writings.

 

[SgtSchultz]

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.

Not everyone on here is from the US or is speaking specifically about the US. The topic of this thread transcends your own country. I don’t believe you will be able to make a very convincing argument if you can only do so within the context of your own country’s laws and experiences. After all, marriage is not an American invention.

1. 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.

So by that logic, one need only change the term from “license” to “certificate”. Tada! Also, are you advocating the position that same sex marriage can even exist? My understanding was that marriage is not something, in the eyes of the Church at least, that can simply be redefined. You seem to imply that it can, by majority vote.

1. 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.

That’s funny, I seem to remember many of your country’s founders not being Christian at all. I remember some of the more prominent ones speaking out against it, in fact. Also, when your country was founded, marriage was seen as being something exclusive to religion.

1. So, if you vote for gay marriage, you are choosing to encourage and promote homosexual activity.

It is possible to argue against same sex marriage without delving into the morality of homosexual relations. It’s best to keep your argument focused. Don’t make your job more difficult by voluntarily introducing tangents, or your opponents will attack those to weaken your core argument.

In the words of the poignent Sponge Bob -“Good luck with that”

This comes across as petty and droll.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I’m not trying to convince an “atheist” of anything.

Well, some of us are here in dialogue because we believe that we have the truth, and when someone comes to the CAFs to proclaim something that is contradictory to this truth, it’s our job to convince them that we are, well, right. Plus, it’s great fun to have a discussion with someone with a different POV.

And if we’re going to be quoting Scripture and the Magisterium to them, it’s going to be about as effective as a Muslim quoting the Koran to you.

Truly, Faithdancer, if a Muslim tells you that Muhammad proclaimed [A] is that going to evince anything from you except, “That’s interesting.” :nope:

Very inutile, from my experience, to dialogue with others from that construct.

 

[Faithdancer]

Since Jesus Christ is the truth- which of course He stated- and we are required to proclaim Him- which of course He also stated- then anything less is equivocation.

 

[PRmerger]

Since Jesus Christ is the truth- which of course He stated- and we are required to proclaim Him- which of course He also stated- then anything less is equivocation.

Well, I never call truth, even if it’s not religious truth, as something “less than” what Jesus expects of us.

So you don’t quote Aristotle when in dialogue with someone? You only quote Jesus?

 

[Faithdancer]

Well, I never call truth, even if it’s not religious truth, as something “less than” what Jesus expects of us.

So you don’t quote Aristotle when in dialogue with someone? You only quote Jesus?

Certainly, PRmerger, Aristotle and Aquinas are great resources for the Catholic when engaged in philosophical debate regarding causation, the simplicity of God, the Persons, and anywhere else where their writings are relevant. I don’t know of anything they wrote that is particularly relevant to the issues of homosexuality and gay “marriage,” however. That marriage is a Sacrament intended only for a man and a woman is covered in Holy Scripture, and that’s enough for me.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Not much time this weekend, but a quick reply to this…

If I support gay marriage I’m not actively promoting any type of sexual activity. I have no interest in what people get up to in regard to sex. But I am definitely not acting contrary to the mandates of my church. Unless it’s the Church Of Brad.

IF you have no interest, why are you even on this thread and writing loads of diatribe?
You provide trite responses such as “I’m not actively supporting” with ironically no support. Give it another try sport. I’ll even make the conclusion more precise for your highly acute sensibilities and I’ll give you a clue: #1-3 lead to #4, you need to refute 1,2, or 3 to refute the arguement. Refuting a conclusion? Where did you go to school?

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 We the People.
3. So why then do we have marriage licenses and the associated benefits? The People (our forefathers) decided 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. Catholics who vote for gay marriage are acting contrary to the mandates of their Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law.

AGAIN: In the words of the poignant Sponge Bob -“Good luck with that”

 

[SgtSchultz]

IF you have no interest, why are you even on this thread and writing loads of diatribe?

Bradski has actually been quite pleasant. He is thoughtful and he debates in a respectful manner. While I disagree with some of his conclusions, his contributions are to this thread are positive and engaging. As evidenced by his exchanges with PRmerger, he livens the debate by adding alternative viewpoints and different ways of thinking.

Give it another try sport. I’ll even make the conclusion more precise for your highly acute sensibilities and I’ll give you a clue: #1-3 lead to #4, you need to refute 1,2, or 3 to refute the arguement. Refuting a conclusion? Where did you go to school?

Now this is quite uncharitable and needlessly confrontational with someone who has been most agreeable. In fact, I could throw this entire paragraph right back at you, as I tore apart your argument in my own post.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Not everyone on here is from the US or is speaking specifically about the US. The topic of this thread transcends your own country. I don’t believe you will be able to make a very convincing argument if you can only do so within the context of your own country’s laws and experiences. After all, marriage is not an American invention.
.

The idea came from John Locke an English Philosopher and the idea that we have natural rights endowed by our creator. And it truly doesn’t matter about the origin of an idea. All that matters is whether it is true.