How do i come up with a good reason why governments shouldn't allow same sex marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WildCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I agree.
But my question is more subtle than that.

My own diffidence to imposition of a minority group religious law (be it Canon Law or Shariah Law) onto a pluralistic Society/Nation would not simply be about whether that religious truly law reflects Natural Law or not.

Traditional Catholicism (by that I mean from Aquinas and before) does not appear to intrinsically demand this of Catholic politicians. Its a prudential judgement except in the most extreme ethical cases.

If we are dealing with extreme ethical situations (eg whether killing of the innocent should be a criminal offence or not) chances are that such a “society” has already broken down anyway.

However Catholic tradition does have examples of less grave (intrinsically evil) issues where decriminalisation may be validly pursued by Catholic government (or individual politicians) on the basis of the common good until such time as a greater number of citizens can be educated to peaceably live a higher moral standard.
I never said that natural law should become state law. There are plenty of prudential reasons it shouldn’t. Lying is wrong, but shouldn’t normally be illegal. But the design of a legal system should – to whatever degree possible – hold up genuinely good traits as normative, and genuinely bad traits as anti-normative.
 
The argument about religious law being imposed on a secular society is really a mischaracterization of what is going on in the same sex marriage debate. When we think of the worst aspects of religious law being imposed on any society, the mechanism for that imposition is directly from the religious authorities to the civil laws. It is as if the religious authorities actually write the laws. The faithful (or not so faithful) adherents to the religion are not even involved in the action or consulted in the decision. Most modern thought about separation of church and state hold that such control of civil government, especially in a secular multi-cultural society, is a bad thing.

But that is not what is happening in the same sex marriage debate, at least in the US. The role of religious authority in a secular society is to present the beliefs of that religion. But here is the key thing: Once those beliefs have been presented, the members of that religion are free to adopt those beliefs as their own, or to reject them. Here I use the word “free” with respect to what the secular government allows and protects. I don’t mean “free” in the sense that the particular religion may or may not allow its followers to believe. So for example if Catholic teaching holds that same sex marriage is wrong, the Church may demand that all members of the faith believe it. But the secular government ensures that no one is forced to profess that belief against their will.

Therefore when large numbers of Catholics oppose same sex marriage in such a society, it is by their own free choice that they make that profession of belief. And if in so doing, that belief becomes the basis of civil law, it would be incorrect to say that religious law is being imposed on society. The level of indirection is significant. The Church (or Islam, or whatever) can only present what they believe. As long as the people are free to join in agreement with their Church, or Mosque, or not join in these beliefs, the decisions they make as members of a secular civil society are their own decisions. Therefore it is entirely proper for Catholics, if they want, to promote laws that are in accord with what they believe, regardless of whether those beliefs were informed by religious dogma.
 
Furthermore, since the U.S. courts recognize marriage as a civil right under 14th Amendment grounds (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) there isn’t a reasonable case to be made.
Baker v. Nelson, USSC 1971, came after Loving and same sex marriage prohibitions by states was upheld under several Amendments including the 14th’s EP.
 
I am having a debate with a friend fo mine who, while Christian, basically holds the position that gay marriage is okay as long as his church is not forced to marry homosexuals. Basically he comes from a nondenominational perspective, so saying marriage is a sacrament doesn’t work. Also, he accuses me of supporting a theocracy when I say that states shouldn’t allow gay marriage and that its intolerant to deny them their rights. He also says that as Christians we have to love others. I tried to tell him how while I don’t support marriage, I am not for violence or discrimination of gays and even recognize some people are born with same sex inclinations (which is why i’m against conversion therapy unless the person wants this… is this in line with church teaching btw?) so how do I argue this. It’s complicated because he is a very devout Christian, but its complicated because he’s very knowledgeable and believes in a lot of typical non-denom teachings (earth is 6000 years old, Faith alone etc). Also how do I not come off sounding like some 16th century papal monarchist who wants a theocracy. I don’t want this, but i am sure he’ll make it sound like i do since he always talks about how bad Christendom was and how people didn’t have jesus in their hearts at this time even though it was the law of the land.

I know there is a lot in here, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks a bunch.

Wild Catholic
You’ll need to come up with a Constitutional argument, not “natural law” or any such construct…the argument is strictly Constitutional, do that and the government might listen…but so far, there is no Constitutional reason anyone has been able to argue with success…and state by state is approving marriage equality based upon Constitutional arguments of non discrimination.
 
My objection to Shariah law is that many of the laws are bad laws, not that it’s wrong to legislate based on moral beliefs. 🤷
But were the right religion. Muslims are wrong. that’s what makes our law superior. Isn’t it? I’m sorry but I truly am not trying to troll or anything but at times I just wish it was this simple because in a sense it is. God is right and everyone else is wrong.
 
when large numbers of Catholics oppose same sex marriage in such a society, it is by their own free choice that they make that profession of belief. And if in so doing, that belief becomes the basis of civil law,
I don’t really see how profession/acceptance of my Catholic faith should by that reason necessitate I support criminalisation of things like prostitution or fornication or less grave matters I may believe are intrinsically evil sins.

I don’t believe that Catholicism requires that of me.
It seems a prudential judgement rather than an unquestioned apriori demand of being a true and loyal Catholic.
 
I don’t really see how profession/acceptance of my Catholic faith should by that reason necessitate I support criminalisation of things like prostitution or fornication or less grave matters I may believe are intrinsically evil sins.

I don’t believe that Catholicism requires that of me.
It seems a prudential judgement rather than an unquestioned apriori demand of being a true and loyal Catholic.
I agree with you on that point. My point was that if Catholics happen to make that prudential judgement based on their faith, that judgement should be treated by society the same as any other citizen’s free will judgement and not be rejected as “religious interference in government”, as many gay rights proponents have been calling for.
 
If his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism – the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and it’s for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit. Marriage is thus unique and irreplaceable as between a man and a woman.

God’s purpose in making us as we are is for procreation – the accompanying pleasure is to nurture that purpose not to thwart it. St John Paul II affirmed that God gave man, with the light of reason, the capacity to be able to know the fundamental truths on life and his destiny and, specifically, the norms of moral behavior.

Homosexual activity “lacks those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons. This is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” (Michael Palachuk, *Why Is Homosexual Activity Morally Wrong? *Referenced in The Truth About Homosexuality, Section: The Argument from Natural Law, Fr John A Harvey, Ignatius 1996, p 133-4

The disordered condition has been found, by those who wish to correct it, to respond well to reparative therapy.
Studies show that homosexuals experience considerably higher levels of mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals. A detailed review of the research has shown that “no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.”36
Note:
36. James E. Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip M. Sut_ton, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality,” *Journal of Human Sexuality *Vol. 1, p. 93 (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 2009).
The reason there is a higher psychological issues amount gays is because those opposing them cause the gays unnecessary trauma/stress
 
You’ll need to come up with a Constitutional argument, not “natural law” or any such construct…the argument is strictly Constitutional, do that and the government might listen…but so far, there is no Constitutional reason anyone has been able to argue with success…and state by state is approving marriage equality based upon Constitutional arguments of non discrimination.
The question in this thread is not for an argument that will hold up in American courts, but rather for a good reasonable argument for governments in general to refrain from providing this contract as a governmental contract. And, to be honest, I think mine is quite a good argument. the government should not be meddling in things without a valid governmental reason to do so. Because of this the government should not be setting up any sort of governmental contract without a valid governmental reason to do so.

Providing a governmental contract for anyone who commits to sharing their lives together makes sense, it makes it easier to deal with the joining and dividing of property, as well as dealing with the realities that come of sharing your life with another in a committed relationship.

However, if you want to claim that that is the goal of same-sex marriage as thought of today then you have to admit that it is an extremely discriminatory set-up. It excludes all those people who are committed to share their lives with each other but who are either non-romantically involved or who are too closely related. (A mother could not enter into this relationship with her daughter, for example). Therefore, if same-sex marriage is supposed to be for the sake of having a legal way to deal with and recognize the complexities that arise when two or more people join their lives together through a committed relationship it should be rejected as a very poor solution and instead we should be advocating for a legal contract whereby truly anyone who wishes to commit themselves to another (or to more than one person) may do so.

If same-sex marriage is supposed to have another valid governmental reason to be made a governmental contract I have yet to see it. But since the government should not be creating legal contracts without a valid governmental reason to do so same-sex marriage should be rejected because it does not have a valid governmental reason to exist. 🤷
 
barts61 #28
The reason there is a higher psychological issues amount gays is because those opposing them cause the gays unnecessary trauma/stress
Such a facile assumption ignores the reality of the fact of the short liaisons in the vast majority of homosexual affairs of mutual masturbation.
 
Abu:
**Studies show that homosexuals experience considerably higher levels of mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals. **

The reason there is a higher psychological issues amount gays is because those opposing them cause the gays unnecessary trauma/stress
Abu:
**Such a facile assumption ignores the reality of the fact of the short liaisons in the vast majority of homosexual affairs of mutual masturbation. **

Abu the source you quote does not appear to support you. It simply observes a correlation between homsexuality and mental illness, it doesn’t state that the cause of that correlation. It is really you who have faciley opined the correlation is a causal one.

Correlation does not imply causation.
The classic example is a study showing that women who underwent hormone replacement therapy were found to have a lower incidence of heart disease. However this was eventuqally proven not to be so. A later study showed that the correlation was not causative. It was simply due to the fact that women who tend to undergo hormone replacement therapy are wealthy which means they have better diet and exercise regimes.

Does your source actually demonstrate that homosexuality is caused by mental illness (psychotic or neurotic)?
Or is it saying that mental illness is somehow caused by having a homosexual libido (barts61 could then be right - societal rejection).

Or is your source just observing the correlation without being able demonstrate the nature or source of the correlation?

Do you have Magisterial sources that baldly states that the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation?

Would you assert that contraceptive sex or fornication or marital sex betwen the intentionally sterilised is also mutual masturbation (though, in varying degrees, more subtle forms)? Eg fornication does not adequately provide for the secure upbringing/education of offspring and is therefore intrinsically self centred.
 
The reason there is a higher psychological issues amount gays is because those opposing them cause the gays unnecessary trauma/stress
I am attracted to other men, and I have in the past engaged in compulsive / pscyhologically unhealthy behaviors related to this attraction. In my case, this clearly has nothing to do with “forces that oppose gay people” since very few people know about my attraction, and all of them are very encouraging. Indeed, compulsive sexual behavior is certainly just as common among gay people who aren’t “out” as among those who are. These sorts of observations make me wonder if the cause of psychological issues isn’t often the actions themselves, rather than the cultural forces that frown on these actions.

My hypothesis is bolstered by the observation that suicide rates among gay people have not gone down over previous decades, despite increased acceptance of homosexuality.

Moreover, my hypothesis fits with observations about heterosexuals. Straight people who have sex (or look at porn) early in their lives are more likely to be psychologically unhealthy. It’s not society that causes them to be that way, it’s their sexual experience. 🤷
 
Such a facile assumption ignores the reality of the fact of the short liaisons in the vast majority of homosexual affairs of mutual masturbation.
Your facile assumption that the majority of homosexual affairs are short lived. The same can be said of heterosexual affairs…and your assumption that only homosexuals practice mutual masterbation is flawed. How do you know every heterosexual couple has intercourse all the time? There is a thing called for play that is considered mutual masterbation. Plus, why is everyone so concerned what is or is not done behind closed doors? It is not anyone else’s business.
 
I am attracted to other men, and I have in the past engaged in compulsive / pscyhologically unhealthy behaviors related to this attraction. In my case, this clearly has nothing to do with “forces that oppose gay people” since very few people know about my attraction, and all of them are very encouraging. Indeed, compulsive sexual behavior is certainly just as common among gay people who aren’t “out” as among those who are. These sorts of observations make me wonder if the cause of psychological issues isn’t often the actions themselves, rather than the cultural forces that frown on these actions.

My hypothesis is bolstered by the observation that suicide rates among gay people have not gone down over previous decades, despite increased acceptance of homosexuality.

Moreover, my hypothesis fits with observations about heterosexuals. Straight people who have sex (or look at porn) early in their lives are more likely to be psychologically unhealthy. It’s not society that causes them to be that way, it’s their sexual experience. 🤷
Suicide rates have not come down because of lack of support. Personally, when I denied my homosexuality by living a lie as a straight person, I was suicidal a lot. Once I came out, and with the love and support of family and friends I no longer desire to kill myself. After 25 beautiful years together my wife and I were legally married 5 days ago.
 
Suicide rates have not come down because of lack of support. Personally, when I denied my homosexuality by living a lie as a straight person, I was suicidal a lot. Once I came out, and with the love and support of family and friends I no longer desire to kill myself. After 25 beautiful years together my wife and I were legally married 5 days ago.
Well, I certainly agree that coming out is more healthy than pretending to be straight. But nowadays kids are not very commonly forced to pretend, but they still commit suicide in the same proportions. You say that they lack support – but surely they have (on average) much more support than they did 30 years ago. Why wouldn’t suicide rates have dropped?
 
Well, I certainly agree that coming out is more healthy than pretending to be straight. But nowadays kids are not very commonly forced to pretend, but they still commit suicide in the same proportions. You say that they lack support – but surely they have (on average) much more support than they did 30 years ago. Why wouldn’t suicide rates have dropped?
Because there are still religious institutions and families/friends who believe homosexuality is wrong.
 
Because there are still religious institutions and families/friends who believe homosexuality is wrong.
If social pressure were the chief reason for suicides among homosexuals, a reasonable person would expect the response to partial acceptance of homosexuality to be** partial** relief from pressures leading to suicide. The fact that suicide rates have not dropped supports Prodigal’s point. The fact that acceptance of homosexuality has not become universal is not a sufficient reason to ignore the failure of suicide rates to come down.
 
Grace & Peace!
If social pressure were the chief reason for suicides among homosexuals, a reasonable person would expect the response to partial acceptance of homosexuality to be** partial** relief from pressures leading to suicide. The fact that suicide rates have not dropped supports Prodigal’s point. The fact that acceptance of homosexuality has not become universal is not a sufficient reason to ignore the failure of suicide rates to come down.
This isn’t necessarily the case. Homosexuality is much more public these days, and both public vocal approval and disapproval are commensurately increased. This means that young gay folks coming to terms with their sexuality are experiencing a lot more pressure from both sides to define themselves in particular ways that can be incredibly confusing.

On the one hand, the “approval” camp insists on a vision of what it means to be gay that places a heavy value on unquestionably accepting your “self” and being publically out in a way that resonates with a lot of images of homosexuality on television, which images are often: white, male, affluent. If you’re not white, male and affluent, but you are gay, you’re going to have some issues fitting into the image of homosexuality that’s offered by many approving folks (including the often culutrally-reinforced suspicion that only white folks are gay and that, should you be Latino, for instance, you’ll be inauthentically Latino if you’re authentically gay). Moreover if you’re not sure of the drift of your affections, you’re still going to be pressured to publicly and definitively define yourself in ways that might not be helpful in the long run. The message “trust your feelings” has a limited value generally, though the approval camp sees it as having more of an absolute value. But when everything’s in flux (as it tends to be when you’re young), “trust your feelings” isn’t as universally helpful as some might blithely think and isn’t always indicative of or conducive towards the self-knowledge required to actually be comfortable with your homosexuality, either in public or in private. So living up to all of that pressure to be out and open and to live into a white-washed image of what it means to be gay can be a lot to handle.

On the other hand, the “disapproval” camp will let you know in no uncertain terms that being attracted to folks of the same sex represents varying degrees of physical, mental, or moral illness/disorder. If this is the perspective of your home OR of your peer group OR of your larger community OR of anyone you love, respect or admire (and from whom you might seek approval), to suspect that you might in fact be gay means living into a vision of yourself that is overwhelmingly negative: you cannot help but be fundamentally wrong. You’ll find yourself blamed for the dissolution of the moral fabric of your community; you’ll find that your capacity to be attracted to others of the same sex is seen as an endless source of evils; you’ll find that people tend to believe they know a lot more about the drift of your affections or even your true “nature” than you do and will encourage you to take on their understanding as your own (this is actually true of the “approval” camp as well); you’ll find yourself accused of desiring (and even performing) sexual acts or ways of expressing your sexuality that would have never occurred to you to desire, let alone perform; you’ll find yourself and/or people like you understood as de facto disappointments, failures or betrayers by people you love. You’ll begin to see your capacity to give and receive love as fundamentally diseased or worthless, and you’ll be encouraged to believe that none of your feelings are actually trustworthy. Your self-knowledge will begin and end with a consciousness of other people’s perception of your own wrongness. This is poisonous.

So with both sides being so much more vocal these days, it’s no surprise to me that LGBT folks (especially LGBT youth) are caught in the crossfire and suffer for it. I don’t imagine that the suicide rate will decline significantly any time soon. Even if we were to reach “full acceptance” (whatever that might mean, for either good or ill), the increased visibility that gay folks will experience will continue to cause some of them increased stress and distress. At any rate, a couple more generations are needed, I think, for these suicide numbers to noticeably decline.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
I am having a debate with a friend fo mine who, while Christian, basically holds the position that gay marriage is okay as long as his church is not forced to marry homosexuals. Basically he comes from a nondenominational perspective, so saying marriage is a sacrament doesn’t work. Also, he accuses me of supporting a theocracy when I say that states shouldn’t allow gay marriage and that its intolerant to deny them their rights. He also says that as Christians we have to love others. I tried to tell him how while I don’t support marriage, I am not for violence or discrimination of gays and even recognize some people are born with same sex inclinations (which is why i’m against conversion therapy unless the person wants this… is this in line with church teaching btw?) so how do I argue this. It’s complicated because he is a very devout Christian, but its complicated because he’s very knowledgeable and believes in a lot of typical non-denom teachings (earth is 6000 years old, Faith alone etc). Also how do I not come off sounding like some 16th century papal monarchist who wants a theocracy. I don’t want this, but i am sure he’ll make it sound like i do since he always talks about how bad Christendom was and how people didn’t have jesus in their hearts at this time even though it was the law of the land.

I know there is a lot in here, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks a bunch.

Wild Catholic
How about this:
Government has no business deciding who can be married.
For government purposes (taxation and legal matters), any two adults ought to be able to have a civil union. That way, there is no discrimination and everyone has equal rights.

The sacrament of marriage is one that Churches should be free to decide how they confer them (with NO interference from the government).

Yes…that means your traditional hetero marriage would be a civil union in the eyes of the government, just like the two gay guys next door. (Render unto Caesar).
It would only be a marriage in the eyes of your Church.
 
If social pressure were the chief reason for suicides among homosexuals, a reasonable person would expect the response to partial acceptance of homosexuality to be** partial** relief from pressures leading to suicide. The fact that suicide rates have not dropped supports Prodigal’s point. The fact that acceptance of homosexuality has not become universal is not a sufficient reason to ignore the failure of suicide rates to come down.
I agree. I think it perhaps has more to do with the following:
  1. Fewer being religious and therefore more prone to suicide
    2, The suicide rate increasing in general and not restricted to homosexuals. They are simply like everyone else in that regard.
  2. The mass news media contributing to a sense of chaos and hopelessness in society. It’s harder to ignore the world going to hell in a handbasket, in other words.
  3. A greater acceptance of and insensitivity to violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top