Help with a question on Prop 8

[Shellac]

The below questionwas asked on the Pandragon web blog. I know I am probly crazy to talk to them. However I like to explain the RC Church to them and why we think the way we do on things.

"The definition of “people who can’t get married” (i.e. law-abiding citizens discriminated against) aside, how is the language inserted into the CA constitution different in effect and intent from this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery D-GA, 1913):

“Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians… within the United States… is forever prohibited.”

or this one, enacted into law by a democratically elected government (Nuremberg Laws, 1935):

Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

You see, Prop 8 supporters, if you want to keep going with your “democracy at its finest” and “outrageous judicial activism” arguments, you’re going to have to first explain to us exactly how this sort of legislation promotes the cause of Western-style democracy as embodied in the U.S. Constitution or Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And remember, I stipulated “the definition of ‘people who can’t get married’ aside”; Whether you want to discriminate on the basis of immutable (e.g. dark skin) or mutable (e.g. religion) characteristics only tells us what flavour of irrational bigot you are. "

So how best to explain this to them???

 

[mlchance]

So how best to explain this to them???

Consider that the entire post you quote is little more than an argument by insult, I’d wager you can’t explain “this to them”. Nevertheless:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
americanvalues.org/html/world.htm
catholic.com/library/homo_union_cdf1.asp (especially section III)

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Gamera]

The below questionwas asked on the Pandragon web blog. I know I am probly crazy to talk to them. However I like to explain the RC Church to them and why we think the way we do on things.

"The definition of “people who can’t get married” (i.e. law-abiding citizens discriminated against) aside, how is the language inserted into the CA constitution different in effect and intent from this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery D-GA, 1913):

“Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians… within the United States… is forever prohibited.”

or this one, enacted into law by a democratically elected government (Nuremberg Laws, 1935):

Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

You see, Prop 8 supporters, if you want to keep going with your “democracy at its finest” and “outrageous judicial activism” arguments, you’re going to have to first explain to us exactly how this sort of legislation promotes the cause of Western-style democracy as embodied in the U.S. Constitution or Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And remember, I stipulated “the definition of ‘people who can’t get married’ aside”; Whether you want to discriminate on the basis of immutable (e.g. dark skin) or mutable (e.g. religion) characteristics only tells us what flavour of irrational bigot you are. "

So how best to explain this to them???

Two completely different things. Laws prohibiting valid marriage based on race are racist, but they don’t re-define marriage itself. Laws recognizing “marriage” between two men re-define marriage itself, thereby subverting the basic structure of society.

 

[randomguy0187]

I still have to think about how I would present my thoughts, but here are the first ideas that came to mind:

First off, people of any “sexual orientation” can marry. It’s just that most people with same sex attraction would not want to marry. What no one can do (under Prop 8, and indeed, natural law itself) is have a relationship with someone of the same sex and have that called “marriage.”

Second, The problem as I see it is that when the judges threw out Prop 22 (I think that’s the right number) on the basis of equal protection, they worked off of their own vague definition of “marriage” as something to the effect of a contract between two loving and committed people. They willfully ignored one of the key elements of what true marriage is and has always been throughout all of history and in all different cultures: between man and woman, ordered towards procreation. Marriage as an institution is the building block of society because it is ordered toward 1. producing new members of society, and 2. raising and preparing those new members to become productive in society. Therefore it is in the interest of society to give special recognition and privileges to true marriage, because it is key to the continued existence of that society. From a civil standpoint, the inability of a particular married couple to procreate, or the choice of a couple of whether or not to have children is within the realm of “medical privacy.”

Third, the comparison between “homosexual marriage” and interracial marriage is a false one. I would argue that striking down bans on interracial marriage brings us closer to the true definition of marriage. Such bans present an arbitrary impedance (based on skin color) to realizing the functions of marriage from a societal standpoint. However, recognizing homosexual unions as “marriage” amounts to 1. having a government that ignores the true definition of marriage, and therefore its governance in this matter is based on something other than the reality of human existence (I would hope that government bases its policies upon reality), 2. rewarding a union that does not contribute to society in the same way that true marriage does, and 3. does harm to society by weakening its encouragement of the institution which continues society’s very existence. I realize that this is a very utilitarian viewpoint, but I think one weakness of the “gay marriage” argument is that there hasn’t been a compelling argument (at least, I haven’t seen one yet) that redefining marriage would not cause harm to the common good (I’d like to point out that the preamble of the Constitution states that it was established, among several reasons, to “promote the general Welfare”).

Fourth, the quote isn’t really an argument. It’s an ad hominem, which is something I’ve become quite used to in these discussions. The way I see it, resorting to such is simply a rude way of admitting defeat in a rational debate I’m sure that you could present Catholic teaching, but I don’t think that such an audience would receive it

 

[rwoehmke]

The below questionwas asked on the Pandragon web blog. I know I am probly crazy to talk to them. However I like to explain the RC Church to them and why we think the way we do on things.

"The definition of “people who can’t get married” (i.e. law-abiding citizens discriminated against) aside, how is the language inserted into the CA constitution different in effect and intent from this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery D-GA, 1913):

“Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians… within the United States… is forever prohibited.”

or this one, enacted into law by a democratically elected government (Nuremberg Laws, 1935):

Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

You see, Prop 8 supporters, if you want to keep going with your “democracy at its finest” and “outrageous judicial activism” arguments, you’re going to have to first explain to us exactly how this sort of legislation promotes the cause of Western-style democracy as embodied in the U.S. Constitution or Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And remember, I stipulated “the definition of ‘people who can’t get married’ aside”; Whether you want to discriminate on the basis of immutable (e.g. dark skin) or mutable (e.g. religion) characteristics only tells us what flavour of irrational bigot you are. "

The problem with those earlier prohibitions is that they all pertained to a female and male marrying one another. Until very recently the very definition from the time of Adam and Eve has always and everywhere been the union of a male and a female. No matter who they might be anyone in this country can be joined to anyone of the opposite sex. That has been the constitutional right and that still holds.

These people who are protesting prop 8 are trying to redefine marriage and to gain a right that has never before this century been a right anywhere in the world. They still have the constitutional right like all of us to marry anyone of the opposite sex who is free to marry. They have the exact same right as all of us who are not homosexually inclined.

.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

These people who are protesting prop 8 are trying to redefine marriage and to gain a right that has never before this century been a right anywhere in the world. They still have the constitutional right like all of us to marry anyone of the opposite sex who is free to marry. They have the exact same right as all of us who are not homosexually inclined.

.

Just because history hasn’t granted them that right doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Marriage is not unique to the Christian faith. It existed before in Eastern cultures and Egyptian culture. Tying people together into a family unit has been a common practice since the dawn of civilization. So marriage has been redefined, many times, even by Christians.

The right of two gays to marry is the same as my right as an atheist to buy some crackers and wine, consume them, and say I’m taking the Holy Communion. Who cares? It doesn’t affect your life at all. What does it matter what I call it, or if it’s called marriage? This doesn’t lessen the sanctity of your marriage at all.

 

[yellowbicycle]

This doesn’t lessen the sanctity of your marriage at all.

I was also told many many years ago that when heterosexual people are divorcing at such high rates that, too, does not affect the sanctity of my marriage. Yet, it does.

 

[Gamera]

Just because history hasn’t granted them that right doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Marriage is not unique to the Christian faith. It existed before in Eastern cultures and Egyptian culture. Tying people together into a family unit has been a common practice since the dawn of civilization. So marriage has been redefined, many times, even by Christians.

The right of two gays to marry is the same as my right as an atheist to buy some crackers and wine, consume them, and say I’m taking the Holy Communion. Who cares? It doesn’t affect your life at all. What does it matter what I call it, or if it’s called marriage? This doesn’t lessen the sanctity of your marriage at all.

Absolutely it affects my life! The family is the fundamental unit of society. Therefore, threats to the family structure constitute threats to society. Society has a compelling interest in protecting itself.

 

[Andruschak]

The below questionwas asked on the Pandragon web blog. I know I am probly crazy to talk to them. However I like to explain the RC Church to them and why we think the way we do on things.

Have them read the Catholic Catechism. Or better yet, print out the excerpt from the catechism below, which summerizes the Church’s entire teachings on the subject…

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Absolutely it affects my life! The family is the fundamental unit of society. Therefore, threats to the family structure constitute threats to society. Society has a compelling interest in protecting itself.

Gay marriage constitutes no threat whatsoever to the family structure.

 

[Gamera]

Gay marriage constitutes no threat whatsoever to the family structure.

Redefining what constitutes a marriage poses a major threat to the family structure.

 

[Eucharisted]

Gay marriage constitutes no threat whatsoever to the family structure.

The Pontifical Council for the Family disagrees: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also disagrees:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Redefining what constitutes a marriage poses a major threat to the family structure.

Marriage has been redefined many times in the past, and somehow the family unit is stronger than it was, not weaker.

The Pontifical Council for the Family disagrees: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also disagrees:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

After reading both of these documents I didn’t find a single concrete reason that was not based on Christian belief that gay marriage is in any way immoral or harmful. Granted, they are rather long so I skimmed some parts. I concede that I may have missed one. Can you provide it?

 

[Gamera]

Marriage has been redefined many times in the past,

When? Where?

and somehow the family unit is stronger than it was, not weaker.

You contend that the family unit is stronger in 2008 than it was in 1908? In 1808? In 1708? On what basis do you make that assertion?

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Marriage existed in different cultures long before Christianity did. Marriage in the United States used to not be recognized between two slaves. It was a long time before it was recognized for interracial couples. Therefore, many redefinitions have occurred, including by Christianity.

You make a good point in that I cannot assert that the family unit is stronger than it was in the past without a common definition of a family unit and what makes it stronger or weaker. Perhaps I should instead say yet the family unit still survives, and that it is relatively stable if you look at families across the developed world. Can you give me a solid reason on how gay marriage would constitute a threat on families?

 

[Gamera]

Marriage existed in different cultures long before Christianity did. Marriage in the United States used to not be recognized between two slaves. It was a long time before it was recognized for interracial couples.

True. Marriage has existed for a long time (since Eden!) because it is inherent to the human condition. What culture anywhere, ever, has considered a union between two members of the same sex to be a “marriage?” Marriage customs and traditions and laws vary from culture to culture, even to the point of allowing polyandry and polygamy, but the definition of a marriage itself as a union between a man and a woman has been universal, as far as I know. Do you know of any society in history which recognizined homosexual unions as marriages?

Therefore, many redefinitions have occurred, including by Christianity.

Christianity didn’t change the existing definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

You make a good point in that I cannot assert that the family unit is stronger than it was in the past without a common definition of a family unit and what makes it stronger or weaker. Perhaps I should instead say yet the family unit still survives, and that it is relatively stable if you look at families across the developed world. Can you give me a solid reason on how gay marriage would constitute a threat on families?

Gay marriage constitutes a threat to families by giving the government the power to redefine marriage. Laws recognizing gay unions as “marriage” treats marriage as a mere social construct, a human invention subject to revision, rather than something emanating from human nature itself which the law cannot change. If society can declare a homosexual union to be a “marriage” then society can declare my own heterosexual union not to be a marriage. The government has no authority to change the definition of marriage.

 

[pathia]

The government has no authority to change the definition of marriage.

Really? What about the laws against marrying your sibling, or a close cousin, or someone too young?

Society used to marry women off at age 12, but that’s illegal now. It wasn’t considered against Christianity, in fact it seemed awfully common (My mom did genealogy, most of the girls were married before they were 14 up until about a century ago). That sounds an AWFUL lot like ‘defining’ marriage to me.

 

[Gamera]

Really? What about the laws against marrying your sibling, or a close cousin, or someone too young?

Society used to marry women off at age 12, but that’s illegal now. It wasn’t considered against Christianity, in fact it seemed awfully common (My mom did genealogy, most of the girls were married before they were 14 up until about a century ago). That sounds an AWFUL lot like ‘defining’ marriage to me.

Nope. Laws regulating marriage don’t define marriage as a union between unrelated man and woman, or between people of a certain age. They simply forbid related people, or people of a certain age, from entering into the union. They don’t re-define the union itself. I never said society couldn’t change its regulations of marriage. I said society couldn’t redefine marriage.

 

[pathia]

Nope. Laws regulating marriage don’t define marriage as a union between unrelated man and woman, or between people of a certain age. They simply forbid related people, or people of a certain age, from entering into the union. They don’t re-define the union itself. I never said society couldn’t change its regulations of marriage. I said society couldn’t redefine marriage.

If it comes from God, then what do the non-Christians and atheists have? What about the Christian branches that DO conduct gay ceremonies?

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Nope. Laws regulating marriage don’t define marriage as a union between unrelated man and woman, or between people of a certain age. They simply forbid related people, or people of a certain age, from entering into the union. They don’t re-define the union itself. I never said society couldn’t change its regulations of marriage. I said society couldn’t redefine marriage.

But who defined marriage in the first place? And why did they have the right to create that definition?

The answer that you might give is God. And this is a perfectly valid answer. But since I have no belief in God, why should I subscribe to God’s definition of marriage?

Do you think that you should be forced to accept definitions set by the gods of other religions?