How my View of Gay Marriage is not changed

[Crescentinus]

I hope and pray that “gay marriage” does not become legalized in the UK.

Or here in the Far East.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Nope. Not a good idea. The State has a vested interest in promoting the general welfare.

I honestly don’t see how marriages done by state officials are beneficial for general welfare? Why can’t the Church do it like it has always done?

 

[ASimon]

Nope. Not a good idea. The State has a vested interest in promoting the general welfare. Same-sex marriage does not fit in with a society based on a family unit that is capable of reproducing.

Peace,
Ed

And if the state abolishes all marriages in favor of civil unions, then there will never be same-sex marriage. So the general welfare is thereby promoted.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

And if the state abolishes all marriages in favor of civil unions, then there will never be same-sex marriage. So the general welfare is thereby promoted.

Why civil unions? What business has the state in the lovelife of its citizens?

 

[fix]

Of course not, most of your founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment so that’s the foundation your state is built upon.

The state has protected marriage here for years. Why must the state suddenly stop protecting marriage?

That, apparently, the state doesn’t have to meddle in Church business, like sacraments, to make the world go round.

It is not about the state meddling in sacraments. It is about the state protecting the natural institution of marriage which affects society.

States back then were much more Christian than now, yet nobody back then made a problem of the fact that state officials didn’t do marriage, except secular humanists, that is.

We are not living in those times. How does that history have relevance to the problem we face today?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The state has protected marriage here for years. Why must the state suddenly stop protecting marriage?

Define ‘protect’. And how has the Obama administration been ‘protecting’ marriage?

It is not about the state meddling in sacraments. It is about the state protecting the natural institution of marriage which affects society.

See above.

We are not living in those times. How does that history have relevance to the problem we face today?

It has relevance insofar as there will still be marriage if the state stops doing it. Nothing will change except that gay marriage will never be possible.

 

[ASimon]

Why civil unions? What business has the state in the lovelife of its citizens?

Because I do agree that it’s in the state’s interest to promote monogamous couple-hood, to encourage the combining of wealth & assets, and a stable foundation for the raising of children. I simply disagree that “marriage” (as the religious so define it) is the only way to encourage these things.

This whole argument is based on the premise that marriage is a wholly religious institution and always has been. This is demonstrably false, but no matter. If it were true, than state-sanctioned marriage would read as a government endorsement of religion, which is unconstitutional. That’s a secular argument. A religious argument (and a quite explicit one) is that marriage is the union of a man and woman, and therefore “gay marriage” is impossible. So if the government were to abolish state-sanctioned marriage, it would satisfy both the secular argument, and Church could then reclaim the exclusive right to decide who could be married and who couldn’t. But since there’s allegedly this categorical difference between civil unions and marriages, the government could still still sanction civil unions to promote the general welfare, and I argue that they should.

 

[fix]

Define ‘protect’. And how has the Obama administration been ‘protecting’ marriage?

See above.

It has relevance insofar as there will still be marriage if the state stops doing it. Nothing will change except that gay marriage will never be possible.

Protect by not pretending to redefine marriage as one protection. Obama has done the opposite, the answer is to get a better president not to abandon what is correct.

Marriage is not exclusively a religious matter. Marriage predates the Church.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Because I do agree that it’s in the state’s interest to promote monogamous couple-hood, to encourage the combining of wealth & assets, and a stable foundation for the raising of children. I simply disagree that “marriage” (as the religious so define it) is the only way to encourage these things.

This whole argument is based on the premise that marriage is a wholly religious institution and always has been. This is demonstrably false, but no matter. If it were true, than state-sanctioned marriage would read as a government endorsement of religion, which is unconstitutional. That’s a secular argument. A religious argument (and a quite explicit one) is that marriage is the union of a man and woman, and therefore “gay marriage” is impossible. So if the government were to abolish state-sanctioned marriage, it would satisfy both the secular argument, and Church could then reclaim the exclusive right to decide who could be married and who couldn’t. But since there’s allegedly this categorical difference between civil unions and marriages, the government could still still sanction civil unions to promote the general welfare, and I argue that they should.

Meh, with these flash divorces how stable is the foundation? One doesn’t need the state to do merging of assets, there is always a notary. People choosing monogamous couplehood because the government encourages it? Would that work? I don’t think so.

One *could *give parents by law obligations to care for their children, you could call it ‘civil unions’ except that it only happens when a child is born to those parents. If that child gets adopted one could transfer that legal obligation to the foster parents.

Calling marriage civil unions is just that, a change of names and thus useless.

Nothing really would change for you, let the Church do marriages.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Protect by not pretending to redefine marriage as one protection. Obama has done the opposite, the answer is to get a better president not to abandon what is correct.

Marriage is not exclusively a religious matter. Marriage predates the Church.

If the state stops doing marriages, they can’t possibly redefine marriages. That would be the height of protection.

 

[Joe_5859]

I honestly don’t see how marriages done by state officials are beneficial for general welfare? Why can’t the Church do it like it has always done?

But marriage isn’t only a sacramental institution dispensed by the Church. The natural institution of marriage existed from the very beginning of the human race. We should not lightly cast it aside in favor of a historically novel social construct with the name “civil union” slapped on it.

Marriage is something. Two non-Catholics married before a Justice of the Peace are validly married in the eyes of the Church. If those same two non-Catholics went before a Justice of the Peace, in front of family and friends, and promised their commitment to each other for life, but the piece of paper said “Civil Union” on it instead of “Marriage”, it would still be marriage, from an ontological point of view. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

This is why the LGBT activists are in favor of such a compromise. It’s the foot in the door. To make such a sweeping systemic change would be catastrophic.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

But marriage isn’t only a sacramental institution dispensed by the Church. The natural institution of marriage existed from the very beginning of the human race. We should not lightly cast it aside in favor of a historically novel social construct with the name “civil union” slapped on it.

Marriage is something. Two non-Catholics married before a Justice of the Peace are validly married in the eyes of the Church. If those same two non-Catholics went before a Justice of the Peace, in front of family and friends, and promised their commitment to each other for life, but the piece of paper said “Civil Union” on it instead of “Marriage”, it would still be marriage, from an ontological point of view. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

This is why the LGBT activists are in favor of such a compromise. It’s the foot in the door. To make such a sweeping systemic change would be catastrophic.

I’m also not in favor of renaming it civil unions. I’m advocating the state stops doing things they shouldn’t even by doing anyway, that is to meddle unnecessarily in the private life of its citizens.

What would be the difference for the Church if the secular marriage was done before a state official or before, let’s say, a notary?

And yes, marriage existed in the early beginnings of the human race, but I can’t remember the ancient Greeks or Romans going to a state official for their marriage. It was only done for friends and family.

 

[fix]

If the state stops doing marriages, they can’t possibly redefine marriages. That would be the height of protection.

You asked me how the state protects marriage. I gave you one example.

If the state were to stop protecting marriage, as you assert, then anything goes. Which is where we are headed now. The problem is not state involvement. The problem is liberalism.

 

[ASimon]

Meh, with these flash divorces how stable is the foundation? One doesn’t need the state to do merging of assets, there is always a notary. People choosing monogamous couplehood because the government encourages it? Would that work? I don’t think so.

It has worked, though. And divorce is expensive, for both parties. In most cases (where there isn’t an abuse factor), this is a good thing. In the meantime, there are many federal benefits offered to legally joined couples. You can arrange for all of them separately, or even a la carte, but I’m thinking that would be prohibitively expensive.

Calling marriage civil unions is just that, a change of names and thus useless.

I agree, actually. Which is why I think gay marriage should be legal. But short of that, and to pre-empt a long, a messy legal battle that may take decades, the alternative is much simpler and cleaner, and accomplishes the same goals.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

You asked me how the state protects marriage. I gave you one example.

If the state were to stop protecting marriage, as you assert, then anything goes. Which is where we are headed now. The problem is not state involvement. The problem is liberalism.

Well, I don’t see liberalism going away anytime soon, how much I’d like that to happen.

But really, in the end gay marriage will be legalised and practicing homosexuality will therefore be endorsed by the state, which represent its citizens.

Also, the state won’t protect marriage anymore, it will only harm it. Better to prevent that to happen.

I agree, actually. Which is why I think gay marriage should be legal. But short of that, and to pre-empt a long, a messy legal battle that may take decades, the alternative is much simpler and cleaner, and accomplishes the same goals.

Well, I don’t support gay marriage (or polygamy, for that matter) but this compromise should satisfy anyone except the extremes on both sides. But american politics, especially on this issue, is so polarised that for every side this has become everything or nothing. Quite sad indeed.

In the meantime, there are many federal benefits offered to legally joined couples. You can arrange for all of them separately, or even a la carte, but I’m thinking that would be prohibitively expensive.

That would have to go. What if one is asexual? They would be discriminated through taxes.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m also not in favor of renaming it civil unions. I’m advocating the state stops doing things they shouldn’t even by doing anyway, that is to meddle unnecessarily in the private life of its citizens.

What would be the difference for the Church if the secular marriage was done before a state official or before, let’s say, a notary?

And yes, marriage existed in the early beginnings of the human race, but I can’t remember the ancient Greeks or Romans going to a state official for their marriage. It was only done for friends and family.

Marriage isn’t a private thing, though. That’s why a marriage needs witnesses to even be valid. Society is built on the family, which is the fruit of marriage. The State shouldn’t “meddle” with marriage in the sense of trying to define it however they please. But the State has a responsibility to the common good, which necessarily includes protecting marriage and family. They’re not a disinterested thrid party.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Marriage isn’t a private thing, though. That’s why a marriage needs witnesses to even be valid. Society is built on the family, which is the fruit of marriage. The State shouldn’t “meddle” with marriage in the sense of trying to define it however they please. But the State has a responsibility to the common good, which necessarily includes protecting marriage and family. They’re not a disinterested thrid party.

Of course, let there be witnesses, but why should one of them be employed by the state? Marriages will still go on, with or without the state doing it.

 

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by ASimon View Post
In the meantime, there are many federal benefits offered to legally joined couples. You can arrange for all of them separately, or even a la carte, but I’m thinking that would be prohibitively expensive.

I don’t follow your point. There’s nothing, in principle, to stop an asexual person from getting married or civil union’d.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I don’t follow your point. There’s nothing, in principle, to stop an asexual person from getting married or civil union’d.

I could say in reference to gay marriage:

“I don’t follow your point. There’s nothing, in principle, to stop an homosexual person from getting married or civil union’d with a woman.”

Why the fuss about allowing gay marriage then?

Then again, I’m a huge proponent of the night-watchman state.

 

[Joe_5859]

Of course, let there be witnesses, but why should one of them be employed by the state? Marriages will still go on, with or without the state doing it.

But then what happens when a man wants to leave his wife for his mistress and leave her with nothing. Does the wife have no legal recourse? What about custody of their children? Or perhaps the woman is just claiming they were married when it’s really just her nice next-door neighbor she decided to take advantage of.

I understand the desire to come up with a compromise to make everyone happy. I also understand the impulse to get the State out of anything having to do with the Church’s sacramental teaching. But this is not something that could ever be considered without some serious thought. The proposal of removing the State from the marriage business is completely novel and would be a profound sociological experiment with far-reaching consequences we can likely only begin to imagine. That’s not something we want to do just to end an argument and make everyone happy.