Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[Mirdath]

Well, you did say " I don’t believe in an absolute ‘source’ of morality." And without an ultimate source everything and everyone being equal, no one can say what or who’s version of morality is superior to the other.

And that would be the social contract

Bickering? Ha, never. Research whom? Jesus was the greatest philosopher ever. Now I could research him.

He was a great one, though I don’t know about the greatest. I’d suggest Kant and Hobbes for an introduction.

Yes it was Dostoyevsky. His statement essentially says it all.

All, yes, if by that you mean all wrong. I do not believe in God, and I certainly do not believe ‘everything is allowable’.

nilofc:

Prove that these penguins who displays this behaviour is outright gay.

Hm, six years together, was it? Sounds pretty gay to me.

And I can show you that being a homosexual is a mental disorder in human beings. But did I say that we shouldn’t respect them?

Then show it, but remember you won’t have the support of the APA.

brianwalden:

Debate is much better than literal fighting. Why must we argue? Well this isn’t a utopia. I would like to agree as much as you would. Do you know how to make that happen?

You could relax a little and remember that the religious and the civil are two separate spheres here in America

You’re close to making a good point. I think that maybe the perceived implausibility of your example is keeping it from hitting home with me. Have you got an example from a real American law that was at one time passed? I will say in advance that sometimes the system fails - its a human system, it will fail. Slavery is an obviously example of this. But in general I believe that the more people we get voicing their full opinions the greater the chance for freedom. The more we try to limit people to purely politically correct ideas, the greater the chance of oppression.

I think you’ve found your own plausible example: slavery. It was also a religious precept – the Israelites were told by God to take slaves in Canaan. And many people sought to justify it by claiming that black people were the descendants of the accursed Ham.

It’s not, in the Catholic mind anyway, about making a vague outline so that everyone entertain their own best guess as to what’s behind the curtain.

And all that’d be fine, if the Catholics were the only people being represented by the government. They are not. So, to suit the needs of all citizens, the government must needs have a more general definition.

Something isn’t a human right just because it’s not banned. Yes you’re allowed to do pretty much whatever society doesn’t prohibit, but that doesn’t mean its a human right.

Actually, it kinda is, by the tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[brianwalden]

I think Mirdath and Brianwalden have given us all a fine example of what these message boards are meant for.

I applaud you both for your respectful tone and the ability to respond to each others questions. I do not believe I have ever enjoyed reading a thread as much as this one.

Thanks!

Thanks. And thanks to Mirdath for the debate.

 

[brianwalden]

Our? Who’s ‘we’ kemosabe? You mean YOUR concept of natural marriage, and those like-minded.

We is Christians (maybe not all, Catholics would have been more precise). I was just setting forth the Christian mindset so people could see where I was coming from. That’s pretty obvious if you read the sentence in the context of the paragraph it’s in. I wasn’t saying you had to accept it, but it usually helps in a debate to get inside your opponents paradigm.

Yeah, actually, it is. If you want to wear spandex, shove beans up your nose and cluck like a chicken whenever you order a latte, that is a-okay. Even I get the ickies when I think about people who get a thrill from wearing a scooby-doo suit in public (and, ew…in private), but I would be truly appalled if that were prohibited by law.

You have the right to wear spandex. You don’t have an undeniable human right to wear spandex.

Also, what does ‘natural law’ have to do with anything? It’s a fictional convenience (unless you are talking about gravity and so forth), generally used and abused to justify some peoples’ indignations about people who either do not live similarly or have differing opinions.

I don’t know what natural law has to do with anything. I was happy to drop it long ago for the terms of this particular discussion. But others brought it back up and some people, I think some of the ones who had earlier deemed it to be bunk, were using it - seemingly illogically - against my position. So I pointed out why I thought they were illogical claims.

 

[Nepenthe]

Thanks brianwalden…I know you’ve been entirely reasonable and this whole thread has been wonderful! And I was rather wondering why suddenly ‘natural law’ came up, since we’d moved past that a while back in the thread, and you didn’t seem overly attached to it as a sticking point. Thanks for clarifying that, as well as the ‘Christian mindset’ which always worries me. (I usually think of it as the ‘theist’ mindset, since from my point of view, all religions have an awful lot in common.)

Sadly, there is no such thing as an undeniable human right, unless we truly desire and aspire to make such be so. Every day we refrain from raping, enslaving and killing is a victory for our kind. But, in our cheerful and silly moments (when we get some time off from all that rapine and pillage and the horrible existential despair of it all), why not spandex? Sure, most, if not all people really oughtn’t wear it…but that really is the nature of a ‘human right’ – the permission, the freedom to do whatever is not prohibited.

Tell you what though, if you don’t wear speedos, neither will I. Just a personal pact there, though I would defend to the death your right to wear them.

Okay, maybe not to the death as such…

 

[brianwalden]

You could relax a little and remember that the religious and the civil are two separate spheres here in America

That’s not entirely true. We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. You can’t prevent people from bringing their religious views to discussion. The war in Iraq, immigration, marriage, abortion, death penalty, poverty, civil rights. You can’t divorce religion from these issues. If religion is a scare word, use beliefs. Everyone has beliefs (whether they’re derived using secular or religious methods), it’s pretty much a fact of being human. We must allow everyone’s beliefs in the discussion on these issues. You can’t separate people from their beliefs.

I think you’ve found your own plausible example: slavery. It was also a religious precept – the Israelites were told by God to take slaves in Canaan. And many people sought to justify it by claiming that black people were the descendants of the accursed Ham.

So religion is the cause of slavery? And religion is the reason we had slavery in America for so long? Wasn’t religion largely responsible for ending slavery in America?

I agree that slavery is a failure of our democratic system of government. I don’t see how slavery is a result of allowing people to express their beliefs, even religious ones, in our democratic system of government.

And all that’d be fine, if the Catholics were the only people being represented by the government. They are not. So, to suit the needs of all citizens, the government must needs have a more general definition.

No. It’s a fine, well at least fair, system no matter who is being represented by the government. Just look at our current laws - they certainly weren’t made by an all or even majority Catholic society. In our democratic system everyone gets to voice their opinion of what marriage is and we make laws from that collective debate. Currently, that definition is more in-line with my personal belief than it is against it. It may not be so in the near future. But no matter what the result is, it’s a fair process that attempts to arrive at the best possible definition of marriage. I fail to see the oppression in this system.

I don’t follow your logic of why government must have a more general definition of what marriage is unless that’s what the people, on the whole, actually think marriage is. No matter where you draw the line there will always be people who claim the definition isn’t general enough and their needs aren’t being met. Where do you stop being more general to suit the needs of all systems?

Actually, it kinda is, by the tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

But the people, through local and state laws have decided who can and can’t be married by the government. Restrictions haven’t been ruled unconstitutional by higher courts. Therefore, the right to marry anyone regardless of gender cannot be called a human right in America (that’s a real oxymoron). Therefore Catholics have as much of a right of anyone to put their two cents in the legislatures as to what marriage should be.

If you want to make the argument that the right to marry anyone regardless of gender should be a human right, that’s fine by me. Do all you can to get an amendment passed.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Does it matter that animals engage in homosexual behaviour? No. We are not aminals. We are humans with reason and free-will. God has said that this behaviour is wrong. And so it is.

Sex is for reproduction. People who engage in same-sex are not able to reproduce. Therefore, this behaviour is unnatural.

This is a Catholic forum and we should not forget what the Church teaches on this matter.

People can debate all they want on this but for me its black and white, right or wrong with no in between.

The gays can do all they want to try and legitimatise their lifestyles but this behaviour is naturally repugnant to most people.

And remember: it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

[brianwalden]

Here’s an experiment that I think highlights the main issue we’re all stuck on:

Say we (the commenters on this thread) are starting a new society and we’ve come to the point where we’re making laws defining marriage. Assume there’s some sort of democratic process for lawmaking, I don’t think the exact method really matters. In this new society the reason why we believe the definition of marriage should be what it is doesn’t matter. So there’s no religion or sexual morality or anything like that. We’re only concerned with what marriage is, not why marriage is.

One group of people believes marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Another group of people believes marriage is a union between any two people. Another group believes a marriage is a union between any number of people. And still another believes marriage is a union between any number of people as long as it contains at least one person of each gender.

Is it wrong for the groups on the more restrictive end of the spectrum to try to get the law to reflect their definition of marriage even though it will come at the exclusion of others? I mean, is it morally wrong, not is it prudent (I think prudence starts to take us into politics and I’m more interested in the morals).

Feel free to propose any changes to make this experiment better. For instance, if you feel I’ve set it up in a way that begs the answer I’m looking for please say so and propose a correction.

 

[emily47017]

Here’s an experiment that I think highlights the main issue we’re all stuck on:

this is a really interesting hypothetical you’ve got here, and i agree that it highlights the main issue. i’m going to have to think on it.

 

[Mirdath]

That’s not entirely true. We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. You can’t prevent people from bringing their religious views to discussion. The war in Iraq, immigration, marriage, abortion, death penalty, poverty, civil rights. You can’t divorce religion from these issues. If religion is a scare word, use beliefs. Everyone has beliefs (whether they’re derived using secular or religious methods), it’s pretty much a fact of being human. We must allow everyone’s beliefs in the discussion on these issues. You can’t separate people from their beliefs.

Nor am I proposing to separate people from their beliefs. Sacramental marriage should remain sacramental marriage, with all its attendant qualifiers and prerequisites.

What I wish to separate is people from the things they don’t believe. You do not believe marriage is a contract between two people of the same sex, and that’s your prerogative; however, you are in no position to deny others their prerogatives – unless it is clear that their free action in this regard will harm society, which in this case there isn’t.

You may not have freedom from religion, but I do. I hold to no religious creed, and I and all other non-theists and apatheists have an inalienable right to do so.

So religion is the cause of slavery? And religion is the reason we had slavery in America for so long? Wasn’t religion largely responsible for ending slavery in America?

No; what I said is that religion was used as a justification for slavery. Certainly, religion – and I might add, of the various major denominations of the time, only the Society of Friends was unequivocally opposed to the ‘peculiar institution’ and united in activism against it – is rightly credited for much of the work in ending slavery.

How about another example, and perhaps a closer one? The subjugation and denial of suffrage to women. A Christian ideal, ever since somebody figured a particular line in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians meant women were second-class citizens (admittedly, in some areas an improvement over their former status as chattel, and a step down in others); and is it not right that women are now allowed to vote?

But no matter what the result is, it’s a fair process that attempts to arrive at the best possible definition of marriage. I fail to see the oppression in this system.

The oppression is in the denial of free action to people with differing ideas of marriage. Why does the legal definition have to be so specific to one particular belief?

Where do you stop being more general to suit the needs of all systems?

When you start harming the society itself.

Is it wrong for the groups on the more restrictive end of the spectrum to try to get the law to reflect their definition of marriage even though it will come at the exclusion of others? I mean, is it morally wrong, not is it prudent (I think prudence starts to take us into politics and I’m more interested in the morals).

I’ve been saying all along that yes, it is

 

[brianwalden]

Is it wrong for the groups on the more restrictive end of the spectrum to try to get the law to reflect their definition of marriage even though it will come at the exclusion of others? I mean, is it morally wrong, not is it prudent (I think prudence starts to take us into politics and I’m more interested in the morals).

I’ve been saying all along that yes, it is

Ok, why?

 

[brianwalden]

Nor am I proposing to separate people from their beliefs. Sacramental marriage should remain sacramental marriage, with all its attendant qualifiers and prerequisites.

Yes sacramental marriage is sacramental marriage. No one on this thread has ever argued that sacramental marriage should apply to everyone.

What I wish to separate is people from the things they don’t believe. You do not believe marriage is a contract between two people of the same sex, and that’s your prerogative; however, you are in no position to deny others their prerogatives – unless it is clear that their free action in this regard will harm society, which in this case there isn’t.

So why can the government deny marriage to people who want to objects? Or people who want to make marriage a contract lasting only 5 years instead of a lifetime? Will these things harm society? Using your logic why should the government have any marriage laws at all?

You may not have freedom from religion, but I do. I hold to no religious creed, and I and all other non-theists and apatheists have an inalienable right to do so.

No one has freedom from religion. You run into other people’s religious beliefs every day. You have freedom of religion, you can believe whatever you want. What about the current law makes you hold any beliefs you don’t want to hold.

No; what I said is that religion was used as a justification for slavery. Certainly, religion – and I might add, of the various major denominations of the time, only the Society of Friends was unequivocally opposed to the ‘peculiar institution’ and united in activism against it – is rightly credited for much of the work in ending slavery.

How about another example, and perhaps a closer one? The subjugation and denial of suffrage to women. A Christian ideal, ever since somebody figured a particular line in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians meant women were second-class citizens (admittedly, in some areas an improvement over their former status as chattel, and a step down in others); and is it not right that women are now allowed to vote?

Yeah Christianity has been used to justify lots of bad things. So has secularism. I’m sorry, I don’t mean this in a sarcastic way, but what’s the point again?

The oppression is in the denial of free action to people with differing ideas of marriage. Why does the legal definition have to be so specific to one particular belief?

It’s not specific to one particular belief. It’s the definition of marriage that we reached collectively. The definition has to define something, if you remove all restrictions there will be nothing left.

But to answer your general question, the legal definition doesn’t necessarily have to be specific to one definition. But I think it should be; I think that’s the whole point of having a legal definition of marriage. My strategy is to work together to pick the best definition rather than to pick the most inclusive definition that’ll make the most people happy. I’m not trying you convince you that the law should be the one best definition of marriage that we can all come up with together. I’m just trying to convince you that I’m allowed to advocate for this without infringing others’ rights.

When you start harming the society itself.

So why do you want legal marriage at all? All it does is place limits on who can be married? Shouldn’t there be no legal marriage?

 

[Polaris]

Yeah Christianity has been used to justify lots of bad things. So has secularism. I’m sorry, I don’t mean this in a sarcastic way, but what’s the point again?

I cant say the point for Midrath but this is how I see it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First, I would like to see where official Catholic doctrine officially mandated Catholics to oppose a nation’s authority to establish female suffrage.

Second, female suffrage is not a ‘moral issue’.

Third, there is a difference between chattel slavery and non-chattel slavery, and it doesn’t equate to ‘kinder, gentler’ but to a distinct difference in what slavery can, and cannot morally be.

No, our ‘moral authority’ has not made mistakes in the past. Morality is absolute. Relative morality now declares that abortions can be ‘morally licit’, that sodomy can be ‘morally licit’, theft can be ‘morally licit’, fornication and even adultery can be ‘morally licit’, and even child prostitution can be ‘morally licit’, depending on the society of the time

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

brianwalden:

So, from your perspective, why is the government in the marriage business at all? Why should the government recognize any type of relationship as opposed to any other one? Why doesn’t it just sit back and let people do their own thing?

Hi Brian. I don’t think the government should be in the marriage business. But if it’s going to be in the business of recognizing the reality/validity of the mutual, total, and reciprocal life-long commitment of one person to another by assigning to it a set of benefits (which include rights of inheritance, hospital visitation rights, any tax benefits, etc.), it should do so based on the determination of the presence or pretense of this commitment. In other words, if such a relationship of self-giving is claimed, the government should assume its presence and award the benefits.

And for the most part, this is the case. But for the government to claim that such a relationship is only possible between a man and a woman is to state, imply or affirm the following ideas (some of which may be repugnant):
1–the recognition of the commitment is predicated on the basic facts of biology/gender, not on the possibility or probability of sexual activity or procreation. The government cannot base it’s recognition of the relationship on a hope of procreation
2–the recognition of the commitment does not require that the commitment be actual. Any man and woman may marry if they like.
3–the value of a committed relationship between two people of the same sex is less than the value of a sham marriage between a man and a woman as the government is only in a position to recognize the “commitment” of the man and the woman.

In other words, the government (in granting civil marriage) does not officially recognize the procreative ends to which the facts of gender can be placed, therefore the facts of gender have no particular context within which to operate in the determination of civil marriage–that is, maleness and femaleness are not disposed to any particular end. They are merely facts. Procreation has nothing to do with whether or not the government will grant a civil marriage.

But the arguments surrounding gay civil marriage have recourse to a distinct context within which maleness and femaleness are supposed to operate. That context is lacking in the government’s determination to recognize a civil marriage and, as such, that it recognizes gender at all in its determination begins to seem arbitrary. (After all, isn’t the government supposed to be recognizing a claimed commitment, not the unmoored facts of gender, devoid of context or purpose?)

What, then, does gender have to do with anything when determining civil marriage? To insist that it has some greater value while, in practice, denying that it does is to say that there is something intrinsically wrong with a woman-woman or man-man couple based simply on the facts of their gender. Not on anything else. It is, therefore, arbitrarily discriminatory in a negative sense.

Since the government only rhetorically or theoretically has recourse to a moral context here, it cannot defend, based on what it already practices, the denial of civil marriage to homosexual adults.

Just as a side note, I think it is often forgotten that the purpose of any government is to safeguard property. It is not, principally, to defend the family either actually or theoretically–defence of the family is merely a function of the government’s orientation towards and around property. That it is in the marriage business at all has everything to do with the management and protection of property through the profitable alliances of families or groups, or (and this is more likely) through the consideration (which is ancient) of the woman as the property of the man. Marriage has changed, though–it is no longer principally about an exchange of goods. Should the government really have any say over it, therefore?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[brianwalden]

I cant say the point for Midrath but this is how I see it.

Not just christianity, but the Catholic church was officially against womens suffarage. It supported slavery in the past even if it was a kinder slavery. The point being your moral authority which is suppose to be perfect has made errors in the past. Yet you still claims it to be perfect. Secularism does not claim to be perfect.

So how do you know if your morality is right if even the church changes or is the church still fighting to stop women from votin and the right of slave owners…

Ok, I respect your opinions that Catholic beliefs are wrong. But that’s never been the point of this discussion. The question is why it’s wrong for me to advocate for the law to reflect my definition of marriage. I don’t agree with your beliefs, but I think you should make a big deal (as the OP put it) about getting the law to reflect them.

P.S. When was the Catholic church officially against women’s suffrage? I’ve never heard that one before.

 

[brianwalden]

Hi Brian. I don’t think the government should be in the marriage business. But if it’s going to be in the business of recognizing the reality/validity of the mutual, total, and reciprocal life-long commitment of one person to another by assigning to it a set of benefits (which include rights of inheritance, hospital visitation rights, any tax benefits, etc.), it should do so based on the determination of the presence or pretense of this commitment. In other words, if such a relationship of self-giving is claimed, the government should assume its presence and award the benefits.

The government not being in the marriage business at all is a position that seems more logical to me than making the definition less and less restrictive so it appeases everyone yet doesn’t really define marriage.

And for the most part, this is the case. But for the government to claim that such a relationship is only possible between a man and a woman is to state, imply or affirm the following ideas (some of which may be repugnant):
1–the recognition of the commitment is predicated on the basic facts of biology/gender, not on the possibility or probability of sexual activity or procreation. The government cannot base it’s recognition of the relationship on a hope of procreation
2–the recognition of the commitment does not require that the commitment be actual. Any man and woman may marry if they like.
3–the value of a committed relationship between two people of the same sex is less than the value of a sham marriage between a man and a woman as the government is only in a position to recognize the “commitment” of the man and the woman.

Agreed with 1 and 2. I disagree number 3. I would rewrite it as: the potential value of a committed relationship between two people of the same sex is less than the potential value of a sham marriage between a man and a woman (Edit: I mean at the time of the marriage the government doesn’t know its a sham, hence it has the same potential as an actual commitment. A sham marriage has no value to society in my book. I’m not trying to say that a sham marriage is still better than than a committed homosexual relationship.) as the government is only in a position to recognize the “commitment” of the man and the woman.

In other words, the government (in granting civil marriage) does not officially recognize the procreative ends to which the facts of gender can be placed, therefore the facts of gender have no particular context within which to operate in the determination of civil marriage–that is, maleness and femaleness are not disposed to any particular end. They are merely facts. Procreation has nothing to do with whether or not the government will grant a civil marriage.

I guess my “potential value” thing enters in here. I don’t know if potential is the right word, but its’ something like that. A particular man and a particular woman may not be able to have children, but a man and a woman in general can.

But the arguments surrounding gay civil marriage have recourse to a distinct context within which maleness and femaleness are supposed to operate. That context is lacking in the government’s determination to recognize a civil marriage and, as such, that it recognizes gender at all in its determination begins to seem arbitrary. (After all, isn’t the government supposed to be recognizing a claimed commitment, not the unmoored facts of gender, devoid of context or purpose?)

Is marriage an institution that the government has created? Or is it an institution that someone else has created (some might say God, some might say society) and the government merely recognizes?

What, then, does gender have to do with anything when determining civil marriage? To insist that it has some greater value while, in practice, denying that it does is to say that there is something intrinsically wrong with a woman-woman or man-man couple based simply on the facts of their gender. Not on anything else. It is, therefore, arbitrarily discriminatory in a negative sense.

If marriage is purely created by the government, and the government does not acknowledge the procreative aspect of marriage, then I think I may agree with you. If the definition of what marriage is belongs to someone else and the government merely recognizes it, then I don’t think this is necessarily so.

Since the government only rhetorically or theoretically has recourse to a moral context here, it cannot defend, based on what it already practices, the denial of civil marriage to homosexual adults.

You’ve given me a lot to think over… I may be able to give you some more thoughtful responses after mulling a little longer.

 

[Polaris]

Ok, I respect your opinions that Catholic beliefs are wrong. But that’s never been the point of this discussion. The question is why it’s wrong for me to advocate for the law to reflect my definition of marriage. I don’t agree with your beliefs, but I think you should make a big deal (as the OP put it) about getting the law to reflect them.

P.S. When was the Catholic church officially against women’s suffrage? I’ve never heard that one before.

I have no problem you advocating for what you believe. Go for it!

Im just a natural born skeptic and trust no one completely.

As for the catholic church being against suffrage go to the Catholic Encyclopedia 1912 on New advent and they will tell you the history and why they were against it.
( I especially love it when the tell you to read Mulieris Dignitatem first.)

 

[brianwalden]

I have no problem you advocating for what you believe. Go for it!

Im just a natural born skeptic and trust no one completely.

As for the catholic church being against suffrage go to the Catholic Encyclopedia 1912 on New advent and they will tell you the history and why they were against it.
( I especially love it when the tell you to read Mulieris Dignitatem first.)

I searched around New Advent. Where’s the official teaching of the Catholic Church against woman’s suffrage? I can’t find it. Can you give me a short quote or a link to a specific document?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I found it under ‘woman’. And I read through it. Of course, John Paul’s Mulieris Dignitatum comes about 75 years after this article. It is useful because the New Advent Article was written before U.S. women’s suffrage, and because the article addresses the fact that in a non Christian government, women lack the protection that they would have in a Christian government, and that if it were a question of simply a ‘right to vote’ it would be one thing, but the movement for equality was so much more–it was against tradition, was radical in calling for things that later came about (birth control, divorce, etc).

And John Paul’s words, reflecting the reality of women’s lives more than 60 years after ‘the right to vote’ note that woman’s innate dignity and personhood are so much more than the ‘equal rights’ and the radical feminists would have us believe.

Still, while the article in New Advent gave good and cogent reasons as to why the PARTICULAR circumstances surrounding the ‘right to vote’ or "woman question’ OF THAT TIME were indeed problematic from a moral perspective, it in no way promulgated civil disobedience against the lawful government–which, it may be noted, at the time of the article DID NOT OFFER FEMALE SUFFRAGE AS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

 

[brianwalden]

Deo Volente,

Your comments got me thinking. In my wordview there’s actually two things at play here:

1. The institution of marriage. To me it is an entity in itself independent of government. We can say for the purposes of argument that the definition of marriage is decided by society.
2. The government, if it chooses, can decide that marriage is beneficial to society and promote it.

The problem is that these two issues often get muddled together and I think that’s why there’s such a heated debate. Society, as far as I know, has no clear way of defining what marriage is. So by deciding to promote marriage the government creates a defacto definition of marriage based on which type of relationship it promotes. The government’s decision to reward certain couples and not others carries so much weight that it almost steals the role of defining what marriage is away from society.

Before I spend a lot of time philosophying (is that a word?) on this idea, does anyone think I’m on the right track?