Gay Marriage: Political Necessity?

[AdriannaJean]

Hey all,

Ok, so just need to get this out there right off the bat. I agree with the Church that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong and that a marriage between two members of the same sex will never be valid in the eyes of God

However, my question is not a moral one but a political one. In a country like Canada or the U.S. where the Church is separated from the state, how could the state not justify sanctioning same sex unions?

I know very well why they’re morally wrong, but you cannot separate the moral wrongness of gay marriage from arguments from the natural law which relies on the existence of God. Is there any way to show, without reference to God, that gay marriage is wrong? Because if we can’t show that then I don’t see how we could expect the laws of a country where the church and state are separated to uphold traditional marriage as the norm.

To be clear here: I would LIKE to be proven wrong and I would LIKE someone to come up with an argument for why gay marriage is wrong from an atheistic standpoint. I’ve just found that I can argue for my beliefs morally but not politically and I would like to be able to change that.

 

[joly]

This is something that I happen to be researching right now, well the constitution anyway.
The Founders believed that American government would not function properly if separated from religious principles. As John Adams explained:
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams works Vol.IX p.229

 

[Barbkw]

If SSA is genetic, then it was certainly present in America 225 years ago.

Yet, the laws the Founding Fathers developed were for the protection of marriage between a man and a woman.

They excluded protection of man/man, and woman/woman relationships.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think we did a lot of reprehensible things as a society in the past that today we’re doing so much to make up for it to the point that we’re willing to give up traditional good values just to satisfy a few people. Religious, ethnic, social, etc, so many persecutions in the past that today we’re so afraid to be called bigots we as a society willingly accept almost anything just to justify “political correctness.”

If you want to look at the glass half full, you can see that as a society we have achieved a good moral sense of equality among all. We just need better catechesis so that we can recognize true social and moral issues so that we can grant both equality and justice for all but at the same time prevent moral degredation of our society.

 

[Nec5]

This is something that I happen to be researching right now, well the constitution anyway.
The Founders believed that American government would not function properly if separated from religious principles. As John Adams explained:
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams works Vol.IX p.229

Today’s populace no longer accepts the historical truth you researched. They not only deny it but also pretend it did not happen. When people mention that Bibles were studied in schools for a century here, the “learned” argue that it was only out of convenience and we have “progressed”.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

However, my question is not a moral one but a political one. In a country like Canada or the U.S. where the Church is separated from the state, how could the state not justify sanctioning same sex unions?

This argument seems to be that since reasons for opposing something are somewhat based on faith, the government must accept it. I don’t think this follows.

First, I do not think the idea of the separation of Church and state is nearly as strong as you make it out to be. But even if it were, your argument would then be “because there’s no legally viable reason to refrain from doing something, the state must do it.” Note here that giving state approval to gay unions is an act. The state must have a reason to do so, not just not have a reason not to.

Second, law is unquestionably related to morality. Every time someone says the law should or shouldnt ____, it is a question on morality. In a democracy, the people try to make use of their ideas about morality to form the law as it should be.

Laws against murder, theft, etc, etc are all based on principals that people should be able live without fear of being murdered, stolen from, etc etc. These principals are in turned based upon morality.

Whether the people involved in a democracy form their ideas about morality from reason based off of perceived revelation, gut feeling, some sort of ideas about common “good” (whatever that is), or what they think the invisible duck resting on their head told them when they were kidnapped and taken to Mars by alien dinosaurs is more or less irrelevant within the system.

Separation of Church and State is meant to make sure that neither organization controls the other. It’s not a separation of Christian Morality from politics. It makes no more sense to discount a particular moral reasoning as being ineligible to influence the law because it’s based on religion than to do so because it’s based on some sort of secular humanism, or even an idea that all men are created equal.

Of course, we must do our best to decide which morality is correct, and do our best to use that one. But we can’t just exclude some from consideration purely based on some sort of idea of “inappropriateness”. Wrongness, yes. Inappropriateness, no.

 

[jahluver]

ask the atheist if everyone became homosexual would that be the end of its generation,its unnatural in a natural way speak evolution like to them

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Christian morality on this matter simply doesn’t matter to the secular government. Even if the denial of gay marriage was spread throughout the nation the liberals will just use the courts to tell us “No your morality is unwanted, our way of thinking is the future.”

One way or another they will force this issue upon the majority, and in a generation or two Christians will be seen in the same light as racists were seen in the Civil Rights Movements. They will teach about the Heroes of gay rights and about the ignorant, and backwards thinking citizens who tried to stop this from happening.

Can’t wait until history texts compare the Mormon Church to the KKK…

 

[buffalo]

Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

 

[rossum]

ask the atheist if everyone became homosexual would that be the end of its generation,its unnatural in a natural way speak evolution like to them

A very weak argument. If everyone was male then that would be the end of its generation as well. Is it wrong to be male? Are hermaphrodites the only moral people?

As to the evolutionary argument: Why Gays Don’t Go Extinct.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Christian morality on this matter simply doesn’t matter to the secular government. Even if the denial of gay marriage was spread throughout the nation the liberals will just use the courts to tell us “No your morality is unwanted, our way of thinking is the future.”

One way or another they will force this issue upon the majority, and in a generation or two Christians will be seen in the same light as racists were seen in the Civil Rights Movements. They will teach about the Heroes of gay rights and about the ignorant, and backwards thinking citizens who tried to stop this from happening.

Can’t wait until history texts compare the Mormon Church to the KKK…

Not just the Mormon Church:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Peace,
Ed

 

[Newbie2]

Hey all,

Ok, so just need to get this out there right off the bat. I agree with the Church that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong and that a marriage between two members of the same sex will never be valid in the eyes of God

However, my question is not a moral one but a political one. In a country like Canada or the U.S. where the Church is separated from the state, how could the state not justify sanctioning same sex unions?

I know very well why they’re morally wrong, but you cannot separate the moral wrongness of gay marriage from arguments from the natural law which relies on the existence of God. Is there any way to show, without reference to God, that gay marriage is wrong? Because if we can’t show that then I don’t see how we could expect the laws of a country where the church and state are separated to uphold traditional marriage as the norm.

To be clear here: I would LIKE to be proven wrong and I would LIKE someone to come up with an argument for why gay marriage is wrong from an atheistic standpoint. I’ve just found that I can argue for my beliefs morally but not politically and I would like to be able to change that.

Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Why can’t brother and sister get married if one volunteers to be permanently sterilized?

 

[kbwall]

This is something that I happen to be researching right now, well the constitution anyway.
The Founders believed that American government would not function properly if separated from religious principles. As John Adams explained:
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams works Vol.IX p.229

If that’s true, then why is the very first ammendment freedom of religion? Why is it written into the Bill of Rights that we shall have no law favoring a religion?

 

[joly]

If that’s true, then why is the very first ammendment freedom of religion? Why is it written into the Bill of Rights that we shall have no law favoring a religion?

In the Founders discussions they would often use the words “denominations” and “religion” interchangeable. They did not want to favor one religion or denomination over the other.