Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[Mirdath]

So, what you’re really saying is you have the right to enforce your religious beliefs on everyone else and we have no right to do anything about it. Your argument is self defeating - you’re doing exactly what you forbid others to do. By your own logic you have no right to enforce your opinions about the extent to which people are allowed to express their personal beliefs, or the nature or marriage, or anything else, on all of us.

On the contrary, I start with the assumption that an action is permissible until shown harmful; how else is one to accommodate such a variety of belief and morality? I am not saying ‘think like me’; I am saying ‘this isn’t working, let’s start from a clean slate and figure out how the government can best serve the needs of all citizens’.

If you would like to know, the main reason I think they’re wrong because of my belief in the inherent dignity of all people. As far as I know this hasn’t been defined scientifically and I don’t know if it ever can be. It falls under religion, or at least philosophy (I assume you impose the same prohibition against imposing personal philosophical beliefs on others).

That’s good! I have run into altogether too many people for whom the fear of hell is the only thing keeping them in line – or who twist their religious beliefs to be ‘right’ in whatever they do.

And certainly, it’s impossible to prove that people possess an abstract quality like dignity; however, philosophically, socially, and economically, it can be seen that everybody does have an inherent worth.

You say it’s wrong to perform actions that directly harm others. I agree with you. But what non-religious/-philosophical/-moral reasons do you have for believing that its wrong to harm others?

Non-religious will serve, thank you. I am lacking in neither philosophical stances nor morals. I say it is wrong to harm others because I hold that all people have value, because I think it is better for all of us to be on good terms with each other, and generally because I’m a shameless idealist romantic.

If your reasons don’t fall outside those categories then, using your reasoning from above, what gives you the right to impose on others your personal belief that it’s wrong to harm people?

I do not impose; I suggest. I think it’s a pretty good idea.

Either there are absolute truths in the world and we can debate what they are or it’s to each his own - in which case you have no grounds for calling us wrong.

Absolute truths? No. Absolute morals? Certainly.

So you believe objective, absolute morality exists. Yet you don’t believe that people have a right to try to model society after what they believe that absolute morality to be. I’m confused. I apologize for not being able to follow your logic, but please explain how this is not a contradiction.

One of the foundations of your absolute moral code is ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. How would you feel about a society in which heterosexual marriage is outlawed and performing the sacrament of marriage is punishable by law? Do you model your ideal society on the little details of your moral code, or on the very foundations? Is making sure gays can’t marry more important than heeding the words of your savior and messiah?

If you would do unto others this way, you imply that you are willing to have the same thing done unto you. Is that so? Would you sacrifice the sacrament of marriage that easily? Has it that little value to you? So much for the ‘sanctity’ of marriage.

If you pull the Golden Rule completely out of the context of scripture it doesn’t specifically mention God. What’s your point?

Moral absolutism does not require theism.

 

[DebCWil]

I want to take this out of Church view for a moment. What is the state’s interest in a marriage? Remembering that in the secular world, any two consenting adults can engage in sexual relationships as they choose, the state only has interest in the product of that relationship which is children.
Children can naturally be born into poligamous relationships. Where does the dignity of a woman lie in that relationship?
Returning to concepts from Theology of the Body , which I still need to read, we are dealing with individuals made in the image and likeness of God. There are 4 things that the Church holds sacred–Truth, Life, Sexuality, and Justice. Being held sacred, the sexuality of married life must be protected. That means protecting the equal dignity of man and woman within that relationship. This can only be done in a consentual relationship between one man and one woman.
Much of the move to legalize homosexual marriage overlooks other fraternal relationships that do not involve sexual activity. Taking a look at fiction, there is the relationship between Gus and Woodrow in Lonesome Dove. Should a close relationship as protrayed by these two characters be given less credibility or fewer rights than that of two men who do engage in sexual intercourse with each other?

 

[Nepenthe]

As things stand, the state does take and interest beyond children, including hospital visiting and various financial matters.

But, that…is actually a really beautiful point I think you are making. Some people may not be called to marriage in the let’s-have-sex-and-make-babies sense, but sometimes, they may simply wish to live together forever, and be as true family to each other. Why should that not be lawful under the state with full rights of immediate kin*, regardless of whether or not they are lovers, of any sex, since it is none of the state’s business?

*Just as a ‘what if’ to those who think the (rather pitiful) tax break should only go towards childbearing couples. Sure, take that out of same-sex marriage, hypothetically, unless they do in fact have children to raise. Of course, does that mean all couples getting married should be subject to fertility testing? Good luck getting that on the books.

 

[DebCWil]

As things stand, the state does take and interest beyond children, including hospital visiting and various financial matters.

The state’s interest is only in the offspring that may come from the relationship. In case of a breakup or divorce, the state becomes involved in the division of property. This “property” includes children.
Advocates for changes to the law deal with individual rights which are currently denied. Lifelong friends should have the ability to visit one another in hospitals as well handle domestic financial matters. Marriage should not be a prerequisite.

 

[edwest2]

Consent, according to an atheist writer, was his favorite word. It meant anything with anybody who consented. Right now, around the world, people are consenting to do anything and everything imaginable. As long as it’s in the privacy of wherever they are, I’m not going to bother them about it. They don’t need my permission. They don’t need any “rights.” Consent lets them do as they please.

In the United States, if someone wants something to become law they better have a compelling reason. But what is the case for homosexuals? You can see the one you love whenever, engage in any acts you want and live together. What’s the problem?

There is a document titled “Beyond Gay Marriage.” Google it. The goal is any mix or match combination of sexual partners you can imagine, all in the name of “freedom” and societal acceptance. The document is signed by Gloria Steinem of the National Organization of Women, among other notable people. The goal is clear: the destruction of stable households and the relationship between children and the two people who brought them into this world.

The Church does not limit itself to the Divinely inspired Word of God, but to the natural order and that natural order means one man and one woman raising their children in a stable household, free of impediments.

If one person wants another to be their guardian or heir or have power of attorney, a lawyer can draw up the papers. I’m all for people being able to visit each other in the hospital and transfer their property to the other if the other one dies. You can do it today

The family cannot become a mix and match of anyone and everyone with kids from several dads and moms. It is not stable. It is disruptive. And it passes on an unstable pattern of behavior to the children. It would be against society’s best interests.

And by the way, “What’s the big deal” is the catch all phrase for all sin involving sex.

God bless,
Ed

 

[KarenNC]

I want to take this out of Church view for a moment. What is the state’s interest in a marriage? Remembering that in the secular world, any two consenting adults can engage in sexual relationships as they choose, the state only has interest in the product of that relationship which is children.

Actually, the ability to even have a sexual relationship is not a prerequisite for legal marriage in the US, much less the ability to have children. If the state only had an interest in marriages that are likely to produce children, then I am mystified as to why we have legal marriage in the case of people who cannot even optimistically be considered likely to have children (ie senior citizens) or why marriage is legal between certain parties if and only if they are unable to have children (there are certain states in which first cousins can only marry legally if they are over a certain age or medically diagnosed as barren/infertile).

There are over a thousand laws dealing with the legal effects of marriage in the United States. These effects do not only apply to couples who are known to be capable of having sexual relations, to be fertile, who are willing to have children if fertile or who already have children.
gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

 

[KarenNC]

that natural order means one man and one woman raising their children in a stable household, free of impediments.

On what do you base the assertion that this is the natural order?

What specific impediments do you see same sex marriage causing to heterosexual marriages?

If one person wants another to be their guardian or heir or have power of attorney, a lawyer can draw up the papers. I’m all for people being able to visit each other in the hospital and transfer their property to the other if the other one dies. You can do it today

The point is that all of the 1000+ effects of legal marriage in the US code are freely given to heterosexuals when they marry, whether they desire them or ever choose to use them. They do not have to pay for an attorney to draw up contracts for them to access such. They do not even have to know that they exist at the time of the marriage. Some of the benefits cannot be accessed simply by having a power of attorney because of the way the laws are written.

I can see an argument that such should be equitable for all. Another option would be to get the government out of marriage altogether. Make all interpersonal relationships a matter of private rather than public legal contract (which is what civil marriage is, after all, a publically funded legal contract–has absolutely zilch to do with religion, ministers can only confer legal marriage if they are a recognized representative of the state—“by the power vested in me by the state of …”). Then those who desire a religious marriage can seek one out from their preferred house of worship. Such a change would certainly provide ample employment for all the attorneys who are graduating from law school, but could get a bit expensive, which means that the benefits would only confer to those wealthy enough to afford an attorney’s services.

The family cannot become a mix and match of anyone and everyone with kids from several dads and moms. It is not stable. It is disruptive. And it passes on an unstable pattern of behavior to the children. It would be against society’s best interests.

The state does not appear to have a problem with that currently. There is certianly nothing that is preventing a two people who have had divorces, even ones who have had several divorces and children from all of the above, or who have children who are not the biological children of the persons marrying, from obtaining a legal marriage in this country.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the Church’s position as stated on this web site:

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

Before Jesus Christ came to this world, one man and one woman were married and given in marriage. When He was asked why Moses had allowed the people to divorce, Jesus replied that Moses had written that law because of the hardness of their hearts, but it [divorce] was not always that way.

The United States was founded by people who believed that people “were endowed by their Creator…”

God bless,
Ed

 

[brianwalden]

On the contrary, I start with the assumption that an action is permissible until shown harmful; how else is one to accommodate such a variety of belief and morality? I am not saying ‘think like me’; I am saying ‘this isn’t working, let’s start from a clean slate and figure out how the government can best serve the needs of all citizens’.

Why should we start with the assumption that an action is permissible until shown harmful? Why should government serve the needs of all its citizens (I actually agree with you that it should, I just don’t know how you arrived what seems to be an absolute statement)? Why is wiping the slate clean the best way to figure out how the government can best serve the needs of its people? Why is the current system not working? You seem to want us to accept your personal beliefs as the “givens” going into this debate, yet you don’t want us to bring any of our personal beliefs to the table.

I’m also not saying “think like me.” I’m saying “this is what I think and this is why I act like I do.” I expect you to do the same. That’s the answer to your question: “How else is one to accommodate such a variety of belief and morality?” If you want to make your case for what you believe to be true, go right ahead.

That’s good! I have run into altogether too many people for whom the fear of hell is the only thing keeping them in line – or who twist their religious beliefs to be ‘right’ in whatever they do.

Why is it wrong for fear of hell to be the only thing keeping someone in line? Why is it right to be in line? Why is it wrong for someone to twist their religious beliefs to be right whatever they do (and how is this any different from what relativists do)?

And certainly, it’s impossible to prove that people possess an abstract quality like dignity; however, philosophically, socially, and economically, it can be seen that everybody does have an inherent worth.

Why is it impossible to prove an abstract quality like dignity? Why can we believe an absolute truth such as everyone having an inherent worth?

Non-religious will serve, thank you. I am lacking in neither philosophical stances nor morals. I say it is wrong to harm others because I hold that all people have value, because I think it is better for all of us to be on good terms with each other, and generally because I’m a shameless idealist romantic.

Why can you make the absolute statement that you’re lacking in neither philosophical stances or morals? Why can you imply throughout your posts that people who base their beliefs on religion are somehow lacking in philosophical and moral stances. Why do people have value? Why is it wrong to harm people who have value? Why is it better for all of us to be on good terms with each other? And if I may put in my two cents, who says we can’t disagree and yet still be on good terms?

On a side note: I applaud you for being a shameless idealist romantic - I like people who stick to their guns.

I do not impose; I suggest. I think it’s a pretty good idea.

I apologize for the ridiculous nature of my questions, but I think this is the crux of my argument. If you merely suggest but don’t impose, why am I wrong? If all we have are pretty good ideas, how can you or I tell anyone else that their ideas are wrong?

 

[frnate]

Forgive me, I’d wanted to think that this wasn’t merely another go at ‘let’s legislate our morality, to hell with finding common ground!’

What legislation is not ultimately for the purposes of defining morality?

Moral absolutism does not require theism.

What then does it require and how is that more suitable than theism?

Peace,
+N

 

[brianwalden]

Absolute truths? No. Absolute morals? Certainly.

You obviously have a much larger philosophical background than I do. I come from more of a math and logic background. Can you please briefly explain how we can have absolute morals without absolute truth?

One of the foundations of your absolute moral code is ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. How would you feel about a society in which heterosexual marriage is outlawed and performing the sacrament of marriage is punishable by law? Do you model your ideal society on the little details of your moral code, or on the very foundations? Is making sure gays can’t marry more important than heeding the words of your savior and messiah?

You’re close to a bit of a straw man because homosexual marriage isn’t punishable by law. Nothing stops a homosexual couple from living together until death - the law just doesn’t recognize this as marriage. And of course, no one who takes themselves seriously is trying to make marriage a union only between homosexuals. But hypothetically speaking, if things were reversed as you propose, I wouldn’t like it one bit and I would try to change the laws. This is exactly what I expect those who disagree with the current marriage laws to do. I will do the same to keep the laws the from changing. Us absolutists are the ones who expect people live according to their beliefs. Doesn’t that make much more sense than living as if we have no beliefs?

Mirdath, you’ve shown by the previous arguments and references you’ve made that you’re smart and you know your stuff. Using the Golden Rule to refute Catholic beliefs against homosexual marriage should be well below you. Catholics believe that restricting homosexuals from marrying is good for those attempting to enter into an invalid marriage and good for society. So to answer the last question of your paragraph: making sure homosexuals can’t marry is heeding the words of our Savior and Messiah. In fact, wouldn’t we be breaking the Golden Rule by not trying to prevent them from doing something we believe to be so dangerous both to themselves and society?

If you would do unto others this way, you imply that you are willing to have the same thing done unto you. Is that so? Would you sacrifice the sacrament of marriage that easily? Has it that little value to you? So much for the ‘sanctity’ of marriage.

No, you’ve got everything all twisted backwards. Some people believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Some people believe marriage can be between any two people (some people believe other things about marriage, but that’s beside the point). These two ideas cannot both be logically true. Either one is true and one is false or they are both false and something else must be true.

For us to love our neighbor is to proclaim what we believe to be true and to try to convince others of this truth. This, in turn, means that our neighbor may try to convince us of their beliefs. By being honest with each other in this way we do unto our neighbor as we would like our neighbor to do unto us. We may disagree with each other, but that doesn’t mean we need to hate each other (I’m sure you disagree with some of the loved ones in your life). On the other hand, pretending that two contradictory ideas are somehow both true is a selfish lie. We harm ourselves and our neighbors by spreading that type of thinking.

Why do you sacrifice the idea of truth so easily? Has it that little value to you? How can you think you’re right and I’m wrong without truth?

Moral absolutism does not require theism.

I may agree with this to an extent, but why can you make such an absolute statement? Why can you call the person who believes moral absolutism requires theism wrong?

 

[Nepenthe]

As to the last, sigh, fine, Kant, Hobbes, Golden Rule. None require theism, all are morally absolute. If that’s not enough, there are threads galore dealing with this.

Other than that, I don’t think I have ever seen such a mighty list of attempted-derailing shuck and jive in any forum (including non-internet). Not just from you, brianwalden – some of those are interesting questions in their own rights – frnate too. But really, aren’t you just trying to take the scope outside the question in hopes of better nitpicking?

Start new threads, maybe. That or post again here with perhaps a somewhat less grandiose-picture, more thread-relevant content? I’m sure there was some in there somewhere, right?

And wait, now you want to say that ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ is a another way to justify the tyranny of the majority? We’re all equal, but some of us are more equal than others? You really think that’s what Jesus meant?

Edit to below: Heh yeah, KarenNC, I don’t know how people here have never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli either.

 

[fix]

And I do realize that the institution of marriage is older than old and not something simply “conjured up” by the state…I just personally don’t see the harm as long as they’re not being married by a priest in a church.

The harm is in legally upholding as true what is false. How does that serve society?

 

[KarenNC]

**Before Jesus Christ came to this world, one man and one woman were married and given in marriage. **

And what do we do with the widespread practice of polygamy in Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures?

The United States was founded by people who believed that people "were endowed by their Creator…"

Yes. However “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-” (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, Article 11 yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm)).

 

[brianwalden]

As to the last, sigh, fine, Kant, Hobbes, Golden Rule. None require theism, all are morally absolute. If that’s not enough, there are threads galore dealing with this.

Other than that, I don’t think I have ever seen such a mighty list of attempted-derailing shuck and jive in any forum (including non-internet). Not just from you, brianwalden – some of those are interesting questions in their own rights – frnate too. But really, aren’t you just trying to take the scope outside the question in hopes of better nitpicking?

Start new threads, maybe.

Nepenthe, I’m trying to reign in Mirdath from derailing the thread. He/She (my apologies for not knowing which) prefers to argue that Catholics have no right impose their beliefs on others rather than arguing that Catholics are wrong. I’m more than happy to discuss the pros and cons of the Catholic position, but if Mirdath is going to try to undercut Catholic beliefs with relativism I’m going to try to point out the faults in Mirdath’s logic.

If I’m going about this the wrong way, I apologize and won’t comment any more about it.

 

[Nepenthe]

No no, you’re fine, brianwalden, and I don’t mean to offend either – but Mirdath is not being a relativist. Rather, the very concept of what constitutes moral absolutism may be differing here. Many Christians and other theists have the a priori assumptions that certain things espoused by their scripture and church are universally true which nontheists may not have (ie a list of ‘thou shalts’ and ‘shalt nots’, as opposed to a derived system), and some theists have a hard time seeing beyond that. Should religions which consider different days holy be expected to work on them, and forced to take those you think are holy off? Many theists do think that way (and some think everyone else should die by stone and fire! Including Catholics, and I do mean other Christian sects!), as I’m sure I needn’t tell you.

 

[edwest2]

Without absolutes, absolutely anything is possible. What is being proposed here is anarchy.

Or to quote a certain person: “Do what thou wilt.”

No, in order to call ourselves civilized there must be a civil order. In order to interact successfully, there must be an established set of ground rules. Once again, all that is being discussed here is anarchy.

When raising children there must be a consistent right and wrong, no maybes, no opinions and no what ifs. This is stability, this is civilization, this is how we should live.

God bless,
Ed

 

[brianwalden]

No no, you’re fine, brianwalden, and I don’t mean to offend either – but Mirdath is not being a relativist. Rather, the very concept of what constitutes moral absolutism may be differing here. Many Christians and other theists have the a priori assumptions that certain things espoused by their scripture and church are universally true which nontheists may not have (ie a list of ‘thou shalts’ and ‘shalt nots’, as opposed to a derived system), and some theists have a hard time seeing beyond that.

That’s fine with me. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if Mirdath is right that theists shouldn’t take their a priori assumptions concerning what they believe to be universally true to the public square, why should non-theists be allowed to impose their a priori assumptions that religious beliefs are strictly personal on the public square?

I say let people build society around their beliefs. Is there really any other way to do it?

 

[KarenNC]

Without absolutes, absolutely anything is possible. What is being proposed here is anarchy.

What is being proposed here is that a society that is not based on your religion’s version of absolutes is not therefore bound to only create laws in agreement with that religion’s version of absolutes. That this is not a theocracy.

**No, in order to call ourselves civilized there must be a civil order. In order to interact successfully, there must be an established set of ground rules. **

Agreed, and in our American society, those rules are arrived at by specific means, not because someone says “My God says so.” There have been and currently are many civilizations that have a different set of ground rules than that currently used by America. Those laws are not immutable. There has never been a society to my knowledge in which one can show that the laws and customs did not change over time.

When raising children there must be a consistent right and wrong, no maybes, no opinions and no what ifs. This is stability, this is civilization, this is how we should live.

At what point in human history do we decide “these are the rules, they are all absolute, there will never be any changes in them?”

Life is full of what ifs, opinions and maybes, because we are human, not mechanical objects that all perform in exactly the same way in response to specific stimuli every time.

 

[Mirdath]

Why should we start with the assumption that an action is permissible until shown harmful? Why should government serve the needs of all its citizens (I actually agree with you that it should, I just don’t know how you arrived what seems to be an absolute statement)?

For these two, we hold the freedom to act for the benefit of ourselves and others as an absolute good, correct? Since that is the case, we should not arbitrarily ban anything before we can examine it and discover whether or not it is beneficial or at least neutral in effect. A similar principle is the one the American judicial system is founded upon – innocent until proven guilty.

Why is wiping the slate clean the best way to figure out how the government can best serve the needs of its people? Why is the current system not working?

Because we have banned actions without examining them properly.

Why is it wrong for fear of hell to be the only thing keeping someone in line? Why is it right to be in line? Why is it wrong for someone to twist their religious beliefs to be right whatever they do (and how is this any different from what relativists do)?

Right behavior inspired by fear makes someone little better than an animal. One should seek to understand right behavior and the reasons for it rather than act like a lab rat with an electrified button.

And if fear is the only thing keeping someone’s darker impulses in check, what happens if that fear is removed?

Why do people have value? Why is it wrong to harm people who have value? Why is it better for all of us to be on good terms with each other? And if I may put in my two cents, who says we can’t disagree and yet still be on good terms?

People have value because we are capable of working together to improve ourselves and our environment; harming people is wrong because it denies this value (and incidentally lessens the good they can do); being on good terms with each other allows this work much more easily; and certainly, we can!

If you merely suggest but don’t impose, why am I wrong? If all we have are pretty good ideas, how can you or I tell anyone else that their ideas are wrong?

Because your ideas of how to handle this situation impose a limit on certain activities without having examined their actual impact. Note that I do not concern myself with anyone’s eventual spiritual destination, if any; that’s that person’s responsibility, and nobody can take it away – even to shoulder it.

Can you please briefly explain how we can have absolute morals without absolute truth?

Sorry, I was mixing up truth and Truth. Small absolute truths are certainly possible – ‘rape is harmful’, for instance (after all, it’s a tautology). Absolute Truth, in the sense of divine moral law, or Jesus’ answer to Pilate – that’s what I was getting at.

Us absolutists are the ones who expect people live according to their beliefs. Doesn’t that make much more sense than living as if we have no beliefs?

Nobody’s asking you to live as if you have no beliefs; what’s being asked is that you not impede others from living according to their beliefs, when doing so causes no objective harm.

Moral stances are, after all, a deeply personal thing – and no matter how absolute yours is, somebody else’s is different and deserving of just as much protection under the law as your own, assuming it does not deny anyone else freedom of action.