Since when do we have the universal right to marry the one we love above all others? To use your (plural, not Emily specifically) language: That sounds like a religious idea to me. We’re talking about civil law here.
What I mean by “sacredness of marriage” is religious beliefs are to be kept away from civil law. The CC has every right to define marriage any way they see fit…they have every right to restrict marriage to whom ever they see fit defined by their rules, regulations and religious texts. Civil law should not be governed by religious beliefs or ideals…The CC may define “sacramental marriage” anyway they see fit…but it has no place in Civil law which restricts people joining in unions NOT BASED ON Religious beliefs.
But it is not a religious idea. Nontheists as well as theists, just as do glbt’s as well as straights, wish to bond for life very often, and with every bit as much commitment and sincerity.
So who has established that everyone has a God-given (for lack of a better term) right to marry anyone nomatter what their sex?
That’s exactly the point I was making. Neither is the idea that marriage should be only between one man and one woman a religious idea. Nontheists as well as theists believe it.
Great, that’s your belief. Keep working to get the law to reflect your belief. I’m going to do the same.
The shunning and stoning comment is absolutely uncalled for. If you believe this to be true, do you believe that Cathoilcs hate everyone? Because I’m pretty sure that everyone sins. But thanks for showing your true, anti-Catholic colors. I hope Midrath doesn’t appreciate you mentioning his/her (apologies again for not knowing) name in the same paragraph. I happen to be friends with a homosexual couple; I helped them move last month and have a dinner reservation with them next week. Additionally, most of my friends and family use contraception. While I disagree with them, I don’t shun or stone them. I’ve committed enough sexual sins in my life to know not to hate anyone for doing so.
Except when the laws themselves discriminate. You said, and I quote: It doesn’t define the truth it just reflects the result when we all put our beliefs in the picture. If this system is a violation of equality under the law then many of our laws violate equality. You believe the current law is just; and it is patently obvious that the freedom of action of those who would marry members of the same sex or multiple people and gain legal recognition for the union is infringed upon without due or researched cause. The rights of the minority must be protected just as much, if not more than, those of the majority – not only from infringement but often, as you yourself show, from the majority itself.
I did not leave the Church over its teachings on sex.
People have put an amazing amount of thought into justifying the prohibition of homosexuality (or indeed pretty much anything they don’t do themselves – or at least say they don’t), but they have yet to explain why God would say it is wrong.
Some do. Many don’t. Why is their voice supposed to be shut out? Why should the majority ride roughshod over everyone else?
Nepenthe, who, for the record, is sitting next to me, is hardly anti-Catholic. We are both strongly anti-fanatic and anti-bigot, and there is no want for people, Catholic, Protestant, and otherwise, who have shown themselves more interested in condemning others’ sexuality than truly setting an example for others to follow.
Then you’re doing a lot better socially with regard to people you disagree with than many Christians. Keep it up!
Don’t have the studies to hand; I read them from psychology journals more than 5 years ago, while at work.
Lewis’s study (Lewis, K. G. (1980). Children of lesbians: Their point of view. Social Work, 25, 198-203.) may be one of them; the references to it ring bells.
Who decided that humans have a universal right to marry as many people of whatever sex they choose?
I was just telling you a friendly anecdote about how I came to believe what I believe. I used to hold different beliefs concerning homosexual marriage
So everyone you diagree with spends hours coming up with ways to justify their postition and everyone you agree with spends hours putting a lot of thoughts into their beliefs.
Well, we as a society have decided on that as the lawmaking process in America. I don’t always get my way out of it, but I don’t knock the system when I don’t. Why should the minority ride roughsod over everyone else?
You condemn others religion. Why is it bigoted for Catholics to believe certain sexual acts are immoral but not bigoted for you to believe that orthodox Catholic beliefs are immoral.
You’re still stereotyping Christians. You can take your compliment back.Then you’re doing a lot better socially with regard to people you disagree with than many Christians. Keep it up!
A Presbyterian pastor, Kirk Cameron, and a man who was dropped by the APA during an ethics investigation (but claims to have retired of his own free will) and established the Family Research Institute. Forgive me if I mistrust sources like that – the agenda is all too palpable.
I’m not familiar with this, and can’t find much on it. Apparently it has a pretty small sample size – 21 people?
Who decided they did not? And what reasoning do they have to support this? Rights should be permissive, not restrictive.
I can’t speak for everyone who agrees with me, but I certainly have – and I have not seen any argument from the other side that isn’t an attempt to justify ‘God says it’s wrong’.
And by doing so you only validate what I say above.
How does the bedroom behavior of someone you don’t even know somewhere across the entire world from you affect you personally and deeply?
Are they? Was the Civil Rights movement riding roughshod over everyone else when, after Brown vs. Board of Education, the National Guard was sent to protect black children being bussed into a formerly ‘white’ school? How is campaigning for equal recognition under the law riding roughshod?
Neither is bigoted. We are free to disagree on matters of morality, no? It is the attempt to force one’s specific, detailed morality on others that is an act of bigotry.
ssa.uchicago.edu/publications/advforum/v5n1/v5i1a7.html
Exactly. There is no unanimous agreement. The best we can do is use government to pass laws to protect rights. Currently that government has decided to protect the right of everyone to marry a person of the opposite sex. This is permissive, not restrictive.
Yes you have. You said you’ve seen the Catholic Church’s argument. The Church’s definition of sexuality is a positive one. It is based on recognizing the great gift of our sexuality and using it properly. You just choose to label it as a ‘God says it’s wrong’ argument. I’ve personally never seen anyone present a higher view of human sexuality than the Catholic Church. I’m open to finding one if you know of one.
That’s the spirit, take my comments out of context. I thought you started commenting on this thread in the spirit of discussion. That’s certainly changed.
Huh? Refraining from sexual activity is a passive denial of the potential for procreation. Participating in sexual activities which by their very nature have no possible chance for procreation is an active denial.
The national guard was sent in to enforce the law as decided by the composite of the moral beliefs of Americans. The Civil Rights movement is the type of thing I’ve been advocating for this whole time. America changed its laws to reflect the beliefs of its citizens. The government should enforce the law; sending in the national guard was a good thing. Your example makes no sense unless you’re just trying to associate me with racists. I never said that compaigning for homosexual marriage is riding roughshod over the law. I’ve encouraged you to do so, if that’s what you believe, throughout this whole thread. What I don’t see is why the law should change just because you want it to. When enough people agree with you to fulfill the requirements for changing the law, it will change. It’s already starting. That’s how things work in America.
Yes we are free to disagree, I’ve been open to you expressing your disagreement with me this whole time. In fact I’ve never even challenged your beliefs. All I’ve been arguing is that everyone get to express their beliefs in determining the law. No one is forcing anyone’s specific morality on others. Who’s specific morality does the currently law enforce? It’s not Catholic morality. It’s not Orthodox morality. Maybe it’s some Protestant denomination’s morality, I don’t know what every single one belives. The law reflects all our morality. It’s democratic.
Not a problem.You’re right, I missed those
I figured that.
Since “we” being person(s) who decide what is moral and immoral then that would mean if you were intellectually honest you couldn’t say for sure that Hitler was wrong when he slaughtered millions of Jews simply because his society of Nazis thought that was acceptable moral behavior.
No. I am not a relativist: I believe putting people in ovens and gas showers is universally wrong, no matter who does it. Come now, were I an honest relativist, I would not be here telling you your idea that it’s moral to oppose same-sex marriage is wrong, now would I? It’d be ‘right for you’ and I wouldn’t be able to say anything about it.
When this happens, let’s do the research and find out who’s correct instead of bickering endlessly, hm?
Sure, that’s one way to acquire a moral standard. It’s not the only one.
Who’s to say we don’t impose that order on our little piece of chaos? If we need it that badly, it’s by no means beyond our reach.
I’m not 100% sure that was Dostoyevsky, but it sounds more or less like him. While I admire the man, yeah, he’s completely wrong here, and I am living proof. If you’re interested in finding out why he’s wrong, I suggest first reading the thread (we’ve covered this earlier), then Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals and Hobbes’ Leviathan – for a start.
What part of ‘using it properly’ doesn’t mean ‘God (or the Church) says doing certain things is wrong’?
I did address the context a paragraph or two down. The two are not equivalent.
Yet you say your opposition to gay marriage stems directly from your opposition to contraception (without much of any added thought required), and that is something people do in their bedrooms! Make up your mind!
And there go all the infertile heterosexual couples again.
But what you’ve been saying is that they should be trying to.
The social contract. They’re not God-given, we make them ourselves. And they are not naturally inalienable, we have decreed them to be so.
By figuring out what benefits society and what harms it, what people should be allowed to do and what should be forbidden. As I said earlier, rights should be permissive – that which is not forbidden is allowed.
I took your word that you’re familiar with the Catholic teachings about sexuality. Your comments seem to indicate that you aren’t. I expect you to disagree but, given your claim to know the Catholic position, I expect you to do so intelligently. If you’d like an explanation of Catholic sexuality in a nutshell, just ask.
My opposition to homosexual acts stems from my opposition to contraception. I explained this in response to your statement that Christians waste a lot of time coming up with excuses against homosexuality. I have no personal interest in showing that homosexual acts are any worse than other sins; they just fall under the larger category of non-unitive/non-procreative sexual acts.
Well, that’s how our legal system works. It’s based on the principal that morals are absolute and apply to everyone. It expects that some people’s morals tell them that marriage, for everyone, can only take place between a man and a woman. It expects that some people’s morals tell them that marriage, for everyone, can take place between (or maybe among) anyone. In this sense one cannot hold morals without projecting them onto everyone. No one has the authority to determine who’s right; but we do the best we can to reflect the composite of what the members of society believe to be true.
So why have you been saying that Catholics violate human rights by fighting to keep marriage between only a man and a woman. As far as I know, our government hasn’t ruled definitively either way. We’re in the middle of a debate to determine precisely what that right is. All voices need to be heard. Going back to the OP, that’s why Catholics make such a big deal about homosexual marriage.
And the process by which we figure out what benefits society and what harms it is lawmaking. In the U.S. human rights fall under the federal government, so the process is to make a constitutional amendment protecting that right. If you think an individual has the right to marry anyone, use that process to do so. I’ve been encouraging you to this all along.
At the risk of getting a bit off topic, I wanted to address this briefly. A quick overview of the development of legal structures in the US will indicate that a movement from a common law bias to a social engineering bias has been underway for some time now. Civil laws were never meant to be moral authorities–that job was justly relocated to the community and its various authorities: the teacher, the mother, the father, the priest. The moral development of the individual was accomplished through the collective work of family, church, and school, not through the threat of the invocation of state power through law.
I assure you, Mirdath know the Catholic sentiments about sex and sexuality very well. But not everyone in the US is Catholic, not even close. And perhaps you were being unclear. Just what is your objection again?
Uh, no it does not. It is based on the principle that the law is absolute in its application to all, unless and until it is formally changed with all due ceremony.
No, it ‘expects’ no such thing.
And nice post – I have a few quibbles about the states-rights aspect, but in the main, I concur.Oh, I am. There are plenty of things about it that just don’t make a lot of sense. For instance, the idea that a couple is still ‘open to life’ after a hysterectomy is utterly laughable. Remember, I’m approaching Catholic thought from an outsider’s perspective: I don’t believe in miracles. I don’t believe, in the words of Monty Python, that ‘every sperm is sacred’ or that onanism is an affront to life itself; men can and do just make more semen, and that’s not even going into the thirty-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine lil’ buggers that just go to waste in there if one lucky spermatozoa makes it to an egg – and that’s on the low side!
How it works now is a corruption of its original intent: to allow free expression of religious and, by extension, moral beliefs so long as these do not impose upon the free expression of others. The way it is now is not how it should be, or how it was supposed to be. And the best way to achieve the original goal, in my opinion, is for the law to forbid only activities that are directly detrimental to society. Having everybody squabble over whose morals get to be legislated only makes the problem worse.
Actually, that doesn’t come from moral relativism but from free expression. You guys can keep your sacramental marriage between one man and one woman; after all, it’s a religious definition and you have the freedom to practice your religion as you like. The rest of us are not required to subscribe to that religious definition.
Where civil marriage is concerned, yes.
Then let’s take away the benefits that come to heterosexual married couples! Equality under the law! I’d be content with that, but I see no reason to bring one group down when we can raise everyone else up.
The government cannot give benefits to a Baptist marriage and not grant them to a Catholic marriage. It is not to discriminate, and since it is currently doing so, it is in the wrong.