Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[Mirdath]

Using the Golden Rule to refute Catholic beliefs against homosexual marriage should be well below you.

When it’s that basic an argument, basic counters are all that’s required. Under the Golden Rule, if you stop someone from marrying, you’re implicitly fine with someone stopping you from marrying. To rephrase, the Golden Rule says don’t enforce your morality on others unless you can take what you dish out.

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?

Critical words: we believe. Other people do not.

Should heterosexual couplings be banned because of the possibility of miscarriage, death in labor, spousal and child abuse, STDs, yeast infections, or rugburn? Of course not!

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.

Or all such ideas could be derivants of one greater idea. Sacramental marriage is distinct from civil marriage is distinct from handfasting, yet all are marriages. If the parties to a sacramental marriage are limited to two people of opposite sexes, that says nothing about the other types.

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?

Because, quite simply, I’m right – and I am a living counterexample. I am a non-theist and a moral absolutist.

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?

My only a priori is that ‘freedom to act benevolently is a Good Thing’, with which I’m sure you’ll agree. Writing laws based on the tenets of one particular religion impair or outright deny that freedom to those who do not practice it – since most religions say ‘everybody should be one of us!’.

frnate:

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

‘Morality’ as opposed to ‘our morality’. Yes, laws define what should and shouldn’t be done, but they should do so minimally in order to preserve both the good of the society in general and the greatest freedom for its members.

 

[brianwalden]

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.

Society isn’t based on our religion’s view of absolutes. If you’re going to call our current marriage laws a theocracy, we certainly don’t live in a Catholic one. But we, the people who make up society, build that society around our beliefs. In America, Catholics do this by participating in the democratic process to try to get marriage laws to reflect what they believe marriage should be. Why is it wrong for Catholics to do this, but right for the proponents of homosexual marriage to do so?

**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.

No one is saying "Everyone must believe marriage is exclusive to one man and one woman because my ‘God says so.’ But currently (maybe not for long) the majority of people believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman (some believe it because their God says so and others believe it for other reasons). These people have every right to defend their beliefs and work to keep them reflected the in the law. In the same way those who disagree have every right to defend their beliefs and work to change the law.

Different civilizations have defined marriage differently, but America has always defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. You’re correct that these man-made laws are not immutable, but they also should not be changed without good reason. Why is it OK for those you agree with to try to change the law, but not OK for those you disagree with to try to defend it. People who hold religious beliefs and/or think current laws should stay the same are participating members of American society too and have the same right as anyone else to work to express their morals in law.

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.

At all points in history we decide these are the rules. I don’t understand, does a rule or belief being old make it wrong? Do only people who want to change the rules get a voice? No. All sides get a voice and a well-run society will reflect the winning side. And because people who want to keep the rules from changing get a voice too - Catholics make a big deal about homosexual marriage.

 

[edwest2]

A quick note about being “human,” currently scientists are looking for genes that explain our behaviors, morality and beliefs. At this point, they are pressing for a disappearance of the individual human person. You are a bag of chemicals that responds to outside stimuli and are programmed by your genes. You have no identity and your only purpose is to reproduce or not. So, right now, we are just biological machines.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, God has communicated to His creation. The Bible tells us that a time will come when men will be lovers of themselves and will no longer endure sound doctrine.

God bless,
Ed

 

[newbetx]

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

Here inlies the rub…

“their beliefs” WHOSE beliefs? Our country was founded “under GOD” “In GOD we trust” etc. etc. But we find these “God based views” being put aside because “we can’t impose upon those who don’t want to believe in God.” Strange, the “anti-God religions” can impose upon the rest of us!

So do we continue to let God be pulled from our country’s basis? And do we just continue to let the minority rule the majority?

 

[Nepenthe]

brianwalden:

No one is saying "Everyone must believe marriage is exclusive to one man and one woman because my ‘God says so.’

Uh huh. Maybe you aren’t saying that - maybe, but plenty of people are, including the above poster.

And edwest, that really is not how the sciences work, most certainly including bioresearch. Just trying to reassure you, since I know many of them and a fair amount about their community and work. They really do not have some big tinfoil-hat secret agenda to turn us all into podpeople, okay? Learning more about these matters helps make you, if anything, less ‘machine-like’, at least as you seem to imagine the term, so maybe that’s a worthwhile pursuit?

 

[brianwalden]

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.

Who says we’ve arbitrarily banned homosexual marriage without examining it? Did we just come up with marriage yesterday? We’ve defined marriage as between one man and one woman since the beginning of American society in the colonies. If you want to make a case for homosexual marriage, go for it - but don’t call hundreds of years of American history arbitrary.

Mirdath, I have no problem with you thinking that my beliefs about marriage are wrong. But I have a big problem when I’m told I can’t bring my beliefs to the table simply because they’re founded in my religious beliefs. Why does a secular humanist who believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman have the right to work to keep society’s laws reflecting his beliefs, but a theist who believes the same thing doesn’t?

As for the rest of your comments, you’ve shown that you do believe in absolute truths. I originally thought you were attempting to make an argument for total relativism and I apologize. I’m not going to try to comment on all the rest of your points, but if there’s something you’d like me to respond to just ask.

 

[Bishopite]

Mirdath;2529466]

Originally Posted by Bishopite
Whether a person accepts our definition of God is irrelevant, for certain moral truths are not relative but are immutable and absolute as they were written on their hearts by God, and people are ultimately without excuse if they say they didn’t know that their actions were wrong as we all know deep down within our concscience that certain acts are wrong;

This argument holds absolutely no water with anyone who does not accept your definition of God. Like me. I’ve heard the whole natural law thing before, it’s baloney, please spare me.

Whether you want to study or understand the natural law argument is your perogative. You know certain major rights from wrongs within you as you have conscience; whether you accept it is up to you.

Double baloney. Objective, absolute morality in no way requires religious belief. Read your Kant. Heck, read your bible and try to look for a mention of God in the Golden Rule.

Kant is hardly the criteria for objective morality as the enlightenment is part problem of the downfall of morality in soceity. I’ll stick with reading St. Thomas Aquinas thank you.
The Bible is a most certainly a cohesive whole as all of it pressumes a God and the words “Golden Rule” are moral principles within scriptural concepts that other major religions have also, i.e., the Judaism and Islam. It is essentially do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And since Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament and God incarnate, He simply proclaimed in the gospels something that has always been an immutable truth.

And what is ‘secularism’ anyway?

It is essentially that certain practices or institutions (governments) exist seperately from any religious belief or practice. And the problem with it is it only leads to subjectivity.

1. Where did morality come from?
2. And who decides what is “moral” and what isn’t?

 

[KarenNC]

Why is it wrong for Catholics to do this, but right for the proponents of homosexual marriage to do so?

Have I said you or other Catholics should not do so?

At all points in history we decide these are the rules. I don’t understand, does a rule or belief being old make it wrong? Do only people who want to change the rules get a voice? No. All sides get a voice and a well-run society will reflect the winning side. And because people who want to keep the rules from changing get a voice too - Catholics make a big deal about homosexual marriage.

You may have noted that my response was not to your post, but to edwest’s, who is not, to my reading, in favor of “a well-run society will reflect the winning side.”

 

[Mirdath]

Who says we’ve arbitrarily banned homosexual marriage without examining it? Did we just come up with marriage yesterday? We’ve defined marriage as between one man and one woman since the beginning of American society in the colonies. If you want to make a case for homosexual marriage, go for it - but don’t call hundreds of years of American history arbitrary.

A few hundred years of American history, which carried over many assumptions from centuries of western European history, which carried over assumptions from centuries of Christian Roman history, which carried over assumptions from a bit of Christian history, which carried over assumptions from Jewish history. Which last, at some point, arbitrarily outlawed homosexuality on no more grounds than ‘God said so’. At its root, the decision is arbitrary.

Mirdath, I have no problem with you thinking that my beliefs about marriage are wrong. But I have a big problem when I’m told I can’t bring my beliefs to the table simply because they’re founded in my religious beliefs. Why does a secular humanist who believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman have the right to work to keep society’s laws reflecting his beliefs, but a theist who believes the same thing doesn’t?

I have never said such a thing. I oppose a secular humanist working for restrictive laws based on his or her particular moral standards just as much as I oppose theists doing the same.

As for the rest of your comments, you’ve shown that you do believe in absolute truths. I originally thought you were attempting to make an argument for total relativism and I apologize. I’m not going to try to comment on all the rest of your points, but if there’s something you’d like me to respond to just ask.

Haha, I’m not half thorough, am I?

Anyway, if you could comment specifically on my rephrase of the Golden Rule and its misuse in calling for the prevention of an action based on minor, incidental harm (top of second post) and on the distinctions between various types of marriage (middle of second post) I’d very much appreciate it

Bishopite:

Kant is hardly the criteria for objective morality as the enlightenment is part problem of the downfall of morality in soceity. I’ll stick with reading St. Thomas Aquinas thank you.

I wasn’t even addressing the effects of the Enlightenment on modern society – I was talking about standards of absolute morality that do not require religious belief, of which Kant’s is a brilliant example.

I do recommend reading Kant, though, or at least gaining a good understanding of his works, especially if you’re going to condemn him offhand like that.

 

[brianwalden]

Why is it wrong for Catholics to do this, but right for the proponents of homosexual marriage to do so?

Have I said you or other Catholics should not do so?

At all points in history we decide these are the rules. I don’t understand, does a rule or belief being old make it wrong? Do only people who want to change the rules get a voice? No. All sides get a voice and a well-run society will reflect the winning side. And because people who want to keep the rules from changing get a voice too - Catholics make a big deal about homosexual marriage.

You may have noted that my response was not to your post, but to edwest’s, who is not, to my reading, in favor of “a well-run society will reflect the winning side.”

Karen, no you didn’t directly say that Catholics should not do so. But what’s the difference between me and Ed? I believe God established marriage and that it’s the duty of society to uphold marriage just as he does. Because our morals come from what we believe to be a universal God, we think that many of our morals should apply to everyone and that those who disagree are wrong (I would expect others to feel the same way about us). That’s our belief. But that doesn’t mean that Ed or I think that society shouldn’t reflect the voices of all its members. Society may agree with our morals and pass laws to support them (regardless of whether or not it agrees with our reasons for holding those morals) or it may disagree with them and pass laws which hinder them. Either way we’re going to do everything we can to get society to reflect our morals just as everyone else does.

Even if you had a society where all of its lawmakers based their morals on their religious convictions, you wouldn’t necessarily have a theocracy. Let’s say, for an easy example, that this society is a direct democracy whose population has a diverse range of theological beliefs. In the end its laws wouldn’t conform to any particular theology. Instead they would represent the morals of the majority of the population regardless of their individual theological views.

 

[KarenNC]

"their beliefs" WHOSE beliefs? Our country was founded “under GOD” “In GOD we trust” etc. etc.

“Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954
history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm. The Pledge itself (without the use of “under God”) only dates from 1892.

“In God We Trust” as standard on all money is of the same vintage. The first request for it came in 1861 and first appeared on the two cent coin in 1864. It’s use varied greatly until 1956, when “In God We Trust” became the National Motto. It was not added to all money until 1966.

Founded? As I recall, our country was founded in the late 1700s, not the 1950s. Let’s take another look at something from 1797:

“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/di…/bar1796t.htm)

It was ratified by a Congress under the Presidential term of John Adams
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm
“Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.”

This was ratified by Senate of the 5th Congress of the United States.
a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20061725/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/5th.pdf
The Vice President at the time was Thomas Jefferson. John Langdon, senator from New Hampshire, was a signer of the Constitution. William Blount from Tennessee was a member of the Constitutional Convention. You can look at the bios of the men who made up the Senate that ratified this treaty at bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch1.asp.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, members of the Constitutional Convention, signers of the constitution, etc vs. Dwight Eisenhower. Which would you choose to be more representative of the understanding of the Founders of this country?

 

[edwest2]

Back to the issue at hand. Anyone can and is doing whatever they want around the world right now. They are using consent. I’m not going to bother those people. However, when anyone wants to change anything having to do with the fundamental building block of society, they better have a good reason

The case is this, why gay marriage? Go ahead, look up “Beyond Gay Marriage.” The goal is not equal “rights” for gay people but any kind of combination of people for any kind of sexual acts imaginable. That’s already going on right now. Why legalize it?

God bless,
Ed

 

[KarenNC]

Society isn’t based on our religion’s view of absolutes. If you’re going to call our current marriage laws a theocracy, we certainly don’t live in a Catholic one.

Sorry, missed this point earlier in my response. I did not say it was a theocracy. I said that it should not become so.

 

[brianwalden]

When it’s that basic an argument, basic counters are all that’s required. Under the Golden Rule, if you stop someone from marrying, you’re implicitly fine with someone stopping you from marrying. To rephrase, the Golden Rule says don’t enforce your morality on others unless you can take what you dish out.

That’s not what the Golden Rule says to Christians. The Golden Rule says to do that which is objectively good, not what is good for oneself. You can say the Golden Rule means whatever you want it to, but that doesn’t change what Catholics believe it means. For Catholics, part of doing unto others as you would have others do unto you means helping to keep others from debasing marriage.

But I do agree in taking what you dish out. So feel free to tell me my morality is wrong; the neighborly thing to do is to correct me if you think that’s the case. But don’t tell me not to enforce my morality on others. There’s one morality, we all have the responsiblity to determine what it is to the best of our abilities and share it with others.

Or all such ideas could be derivants of one greater idea. Sacramental marriage is distinct from civil marriage is distinct from handfasting, yet all are marriages. If the parties to a sacramental marriage are limited to two people of opposite sexes, that says nothing about the other types.

Again, you’re putting your beliefs in the mouths of Christians. Christians don’t merely believe that sacramental marriages are limited to one man and one woman, but that all marriages are. But sacramental marriages really don’t have much to do with our discussion of marriage in general. They’re just a special, Christian form of marriage. So lets move on to natural marriage.

Christians believe that all marriage was created by God for all people regardless of race or creed. I think this derives from our belief in one sexual morality for all people. Different cultures have implemented marriage better or worse than others, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are all modeled after God’s institution of marriage. Here’s a brief excerpt from the Catechism explaining what Catholics believe about marriage:

Marriage in the order of creation

1603
"The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,88 some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."89

1604
God who created man out of love also calls him to love—the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90 Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.’"91

1605
Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."95

I guess what it comes down to is that Catholics believe God is still the God of everyone who doesn’t believe in him. It’s not an easy belief to hold, but it’s not exactly something we can just drop without being dishonest to ourselves.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m not a pro-Gay marriage advocate…but…it would be interesting to see, if gay “married” couples, if they were permitted to marry…would outlast heterosexual marriages. I mean…could they really do worse? The heterosexual stats on divorce are staggering. Again…not promoting gay marriage…but it would be an interesting case study, I think.

 

[Mirdath]

That’s not what the Golden Rule says to Christians. The Golden Rule says to do that which is objectively good, not what is good for oneself.

No, actually, it doesn’t. It says if you don’t think something will be good if done to you, don’t do it to someone else. As a moral rubric it’s not nearly as objective as, say, the Categorical Imperative.

For Catholics, part of doing unto others as you would have others do unto you means helping to keep others from debasing marriage.

Catholics can claim sole ownership of the concept of marriage all they like, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. Other people have a great stake in marriage as well, and unless Catholicism can prove its moral standpoint indubitably correct nobody else needs to buy into it. And in America’s case specifically, we hold that all people have a right to choose and practice whatever faith or lack of faith they like, and the moral code comes in the package. Nobody else is required to conform to that moral code. Why then should the government enforce it, since the removal of such enforcements would not cause infringements on anyone’s inalienable rights?

There’s one morality, we all have the responsiblity to determine what it is to the best of our abilities and share it with others.

One true moral code, certainly. But there are many different ideas as to what that one is. Most of those have a whole bunch of riders attached. Jews think it’s immoral to eat pork. Muslims think it’s immoral to draw people. Vaishnavite Hindus think it’s immoral to eat meat, period. Jains think it’s immoral to squash bugs. Shakers think it’s immoral to procreate. Jehovah’s Witnesses think it’s immoral to transfuse blood. Have we a way of determining who’s right? No, beyond everybody converting to one system; and we have an inalienable right not to do that. Then should our laws reflect each moral code in the fullest degree? Impossible.

So what should we do? Why not find a common ground in all these disparate systems of morality and enforce that, letting people with differing moral codes expand upon that base in their private lives and in their communal faiths (if applicable) as they will? What’s wrong with that?

I guess what it comes down to is that Catholics believe God is still the God of everyone who doesn’t believe in him. It’s not an easy belief to hold, but it’s not exactly something we can just drop without being dishonest to ourselves.

Believe it all you like, but you simply can’t make anybody who doesn’t want to think that way, nor should you. Conversion by force is no conversion at all. And conversion to your moral code is merely a part of the greater; if done by force or by legal mandate, what good is it?

Why should the law be an instrument of conversion for one faith over another?

 

[frnate]

‘Morality’ as opposed to ‘our morality’.

That is my point, all legislation is based on someone’s morality. So who’s morality do we choose? And why?

Yes, laws define what should and shouldn’t be done, but they should do so minimally in order to preserve both the good of the society in general and the greatest freedom for its members.

Mistakenly imposing the legitimization of an aberrant lifestyle on the citizenry is not minimal legislation. Nor does it preserve the good of society in general. Rather, it disrupts society by attempting to dismantle it.

Peace,
+N

 

[edwest2]

The problems you bring up cannot and will not be solved here. Catholics believe what we believe. We are told to tell others about it. This has been going on for over 2000 years.

Jesus Christ told His disciples that they had chosen [Him] freely. We are not told by God to force others to Him. We can only bring others the Gospel, it is the job of the Holy Spirit to draw others to Christ.

I hope the ruckus being raised here was of some value. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of God and just as the State is prohibited from Establishing a State religion, we are given the right to the Free Excersize of our beliefs. If the laws don’t suit you, you are free to petition the government, just as we are.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mirdath]

Mistakenly imposing the legitimization of an aberrant lifestyle on the citizenry is not minimal legislation. Nor does it preserve the good of society in general. Rather, it disrupts society by attempting to dismantle it.

Not everybody believes it’s aberrant, not everybody believes it’s harmful to society. Prove these two things to the satisfaction of any non-Catholic, and then it is definitely something to be considered for a ban – if the ban will not do even more damage. But that you merely believe it so does not make it that way.

edwest2:

Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of God and just as the State is prohibited from Establishing a State religion, we are given the right to the Free Excersize of our beliefs. If the laws don’t suit you, you are free to petition the government, just as we are.

Why should anyone have to petition the government in the first place to legalize a free exercise of his or her beliefs? It is an inalienable right! Until that exercise is shown to be harmful to society or to infringe upon the free exercise of others, there is absolutely no reason it should be illegal.

Christians do have the home-team advantage in this country, as a large number of the founders were Christian; but this is not a Christian country, its laws are not to be based on Christian morality, and the fact that some are based on these beliefs and limit the expression of others is a thing un-American at its core, and a thing to be lamented and rapidly remedied.

 

[brianwalden]

No, actually, it doesn’t. It says if you don’t think something will be good if done to you, don’t do it to someone else. As a moral rubric it’s not nearly as objective as, say, the Categorical Imperative.

Ok, lets go through how a Christian mind works.

1. We should do good to others because we would like others to do good to us.
2. What is good from a Christian perspective? That which is objectively good.
3. What is objectively good? That which comes from God.

When we apply this to marriage what do we get? I would have others prevent me from redefining marriage because that would cause me to displease God. Therefore I will try to prevent others from redefining marriage.

If you want to make the case that the Golden Rule means supporting homosexuals who want to get married, you’re arguing that scripture contradicts itself. In order to back up that claim you’ve got a long, uphill battle against biblical scholars much smarter than me.