Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[Acrossthedesert]

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.
.

I am trying to differentiate between the **man made **and the metaphysically given. Our most precious rights (life, liberty, assembly, religion) are endowed by God. I am indicating that a marriage license is in the realm of the **man made **and therefore not a matter of basic human rights. It is the genus of all licences, driving license, fishing license, etc…

 

[Acrossthedesert]

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.
.

This is about the original intent of the implementing of marriage licenses. Marriage licensing is essential part of conveying benifits. Lawmakers wish to convey benefits to promote marriage from their Christian backround.

FYI: To date America is not a secular country. In France and Mexico, marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion; people get married twice… once in Church and once for the state. In America the priest signs the marriage license in the vestibule after the sacrament is completed. Once ceremony, one license.

 

[RobbyS]

I am trying to differentiate between the **man made **and the metaphysically given. Our most precious rights (life, liberty, assembly, religion) are endowed by God. I am indicating that a marriage license is in the realm of the **man made **and therefore not a matter of basic human rights. It is the genus of all licences, driving license, fishing license, etc…

Licenses exist for certain purposes. 1) the state needs to raise money, so tax an activity. 2) the behavior needs to be regulated for the common good, including that of the persons affected. But marriage is more in the line of property. It exists independently of the state’s right to regulate it, but it can by destroyed or devalued by state action.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

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.

This comes across as petty and droll.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Licenses exist for certain purposes. 1) the state needs to raise money, so tax an activity. 2) the behavior needs to be regulated for the common good, including that of the persons affected. But marriage is more in the line of property. It exists independently of the state’s right to regulate it, but it can by destroyed or devalued by state action.

Did you find the following argument persuasive?

" 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 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 according to their own Christian beliefs.
4. So, Gay marriage is not about justice nor equality. Gay marriage is about promoting gay “lifestyles”. Catholics should not support gay marriage and promote “lifestyles” contrary to the mandates of your Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

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.

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.

I apologize.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

SgtSchultz, let’s try this again.

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

1. People are “equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” For example, we have a natural right to speak, to religion, to assemble etc. Do you agree?
2. People do not have a natural right to a marriage licence. Licenses are given by governments (men) to bestow benefits. Do you agree?
3. The laws concerning marriage licenses and the associated benefits were written to encourage/promote marriage according to society’s Christian beliefs.Do you agree?
4. Therefore, gay marriage is not about equality. Gay marriage is about promoting a “gay lifestyle”.
5. People are righteous not to support gay marriage in that promoting this “lifestyle” is contrary to their beliefs. Do you agree?

For example, Catholics are righteous to oppose gay marriage because promoting a “gay lifestyle” is contrary to the mandates of their Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law. Do you agree?

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.

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.

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.

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.

This comes across as petty and droll.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

SgtSchultz, let’s try this again.

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

1. People are “equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” For example, we have a natural right to speak, to religion, to assemble etc. Do you agree?
2. People do not have a natural right to a marriage licence. Licenses are given by governments (men) to bestow benefits. Do you agree?
3. The laws concerning marriage licenses and the associated benefits were written to encourage/promote marriage according to society’s Christian beliefs.Do you agree?
4. Therefore, gay marriage is not about equality. Gay marriage is about promoting a “gay lifestyle”.
5. People are righteous not to support gay marriage in that promoting this “lifestyle” is contrary to their beliefs. Do you agree?

For example, Catholics are righteous to oppose gay marriage because promoting a “gay lifestyle” is contrary to the mandates of their Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law. Do you agree?

“If you want to corrupt a culture, first corrupt its language”

 

[Acrossthedesert]

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?

The Truth is the recognition of reality. So at its roots all truth is reconciled. (Science, Religion, Politics, Art)

But Amen I say to you. Let us proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that they may have life in them. It is not our intelligence which will win the day and save anyone (we cannot save ourselves). It is the Holy Spirit working through us, which allows us to be instruments of the divine will.

If you do not give them God, you have given them nothing.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

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:

What would I say to a Muslim? Jesus could not have been a prophet. He clearly talked and acted as God. Jesus was either a great heretic (as some Jews believe) or HE IS WHO HE says HE IS.

If you’re coming to Catholic Answers you are looking… as we all are to some extent. We are most with Christ when we are in the mystical Body of Christ, His Church. For example, several participants have already corrected my manner in replying to their friends. When people come to the Church, they bring in the infection of worldly ideas, but through the power (not of persuasion) but of real love of the truth, Jesus Christ, we can participate in God’s purification of our hearts and souls. We must participate in the sacraments dilligently, and humbly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus saves and we must pray to know what God has planned for us and our role in the mission of the Church, the mystical Body of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

If you do not give them God, you have given them nothing.

I agree 100%!

And just so we’re clear: God is not just that which is contained in the Scriptures and the Magisterium, right?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Perhaps if you could be a bit more abstract in your thinking…

I am not speaking, concretely, of Aristotle being able to support gay “marriage”.

I am simply saying that even you do not use only Scripture, or religious arguments, when you are in dialogue with a non-believer.

If you’ve ever quoted Aristotle to someone (and I’m sure you have! ) then you are indeed in agreement with my paradigm which was: “Firstly, I don’t believe that any Catholic argues against [insert moral precept *du jour] from a purely religious POV.”

That marriage is a Sacrament intended only for a man and a woman is covered in Holy Scripture, and that’s enough for me.

But it’s certainly not enough for the atheist, is it?

“That the Koran says that Jesus is not divine is enough for me!” isn’t going to be very persuasive to you, is it, Faithdancer?

 

[PRmerger]

I apologize.

 

[Faithdancer]

I agree 100%!

And just so we’re clear: God is not just that which is contained in the Scriptures and the Magisterium, right?

He is also in the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

He is also in the Eucharist.

That, friend, is a non-sequitur. True. But a non-sequitur nonetheless.

 

[Faithdancer]

Perhaps if you could be a bit more abstract in your thinking…

I am not speaking, concretely, of Aristotle being able to support gay “marriage”.

I am simply saying that even you do not use only Scripture, or religious arguments, when you are in dialogue with a non-believer.

If you’ve ever quoted Aristotle to someone (and I’m sure you have! ) then you are indeed in agreement with my paradigm which was: "Firstly, I don’t believe that any Catholic argues against [insert moral precept *du jour

] from a purely religious POV."

But it’s certainly not enough for the atheist, is it?

“That the Koran says that Jesus is not divine is enough for me!” isn’t going to be very persuasive to you, is it, Faithdancer?Again- and I have to more or less repeat myself- I’m not out to evangelize “atheists.” My belief that homosexual activity is a gravely disordered sin is grounded 100% in Catholic teaching. Obviously “atheists” do not recognize Catholic teaching, nor do they believe in sin. If I state the position of the Magisterium on homosexuality and gay “marriage” to an “atheist” it is not in an effort to persuade them- I am simply stating the position.

 

[PRmerger]

Again- and I have to more or less repeat myself- I’m not out to evangelize “atheists.”

Then you are, friend, in opposition to Catholic teaching. We are called to evangelize to all: atheists and non-atheists alike.

My belief that homosexual activity is a gravely disordered sin is grounded 100% in Catholic teaching. Obviously “atheists” do not recognize Catholic teaching, nor do they believe in sin. If I state the position of the Magisterium on homosexuality and gay “marriage” to an “atheist” it is not in an effort to persuade them- I am simply stating the position.

Dialogue is fruitful. But your paradigm that you are presenting above is not.

 

[Bill_7154]

Licenses exist for certain purposes. 1) the state needs to raise money, so tax an activity. 2) the behavior needs to be regulated for the common good, including that of the persons affected. But marriage is more in the line of property. It exists independently of the state’s right to regulate it, but it can by destroyed or devalued by state action.

IMO the state should have nothing to do with marriage. IMO they create licenses to create things to regulate and oversee and chage fees for. They often pitch rationalizations such as ‘the common good’.

I’m a big boy now and can play nice. I don’t need uncle sam holding my hand, changing my diaper, or spanking me. What about you? Would you go on a murderous rampage if there was no law against it?

IMO the state is a joke. It is the biggest scam known to man. They have been running way out of control for decades now. There is no end in sight.

How many more laws do we need? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000,000? This is the direction we are going in. So I ask you in all serousness, how many more laws do we need? 40 million? Will that be enough? 45 more laws and that is enough? Seriously, I want your opinion on an exact figure, or estimate on this. How many more laws do we need?

 

[Bill_7154]

1. So why then do we have marriage licenses and the associated benefits? The People (our forefathers) decided they wanted to encourage/promote marriage according to their own Christian beliefs.

Is there seriously something in the constitution or federalist papers that talks about marriage licenses?

 

[Faithdancer]

We are called to evangelize to all: atheists and non-atheists alike.

This is true, in the collective “we.” Where did I ever say that the Catholic Church does not call for evangelizing everyone? I simply state that I, an individual, won’t focuse my effort trying to evangelize "atheists."I am free to follow *my *charism, and focus my evangelization efforts on lapsed and marginally involved Catholics, and to further catechesis. In fact I am actively involved in ministry, doing just that. Personally, I think there are countless hours of work to be done in this area.

St. Paul teaches that individuals each contribute to the body and work of Christ in their own way, which best suits their talent and ability. No one person can do it all, PRmerger, and if you truly feel called to evangelize “atheists-” if that is what you are doing- I commend you to it.