If homosexual marriage should be illegal, shouldn't all other sins be illegal as well?

[tlimon]

Simply put: get government out of the business of marriage.

Superb! I think the same thing. I have argued this extensively with fellow law students who are advocates for gay ‘marriage.’ Let’s just say that they loath the idea. I was kind of shocked that my fellow law students wouldn’t go along with idea because the equal protection problem would be resolved instantly. Through the process I was able to understand the real intentions of the gay marriage advocates.

From a strategic perspective, the gay activists want to be totally legitimated in society. While marriage is unimportant to most homosexuals, the right to marriage is acknowledged as an important step to be legitimized in society as practicing a morally acceptable life style. If marriage is good and gay people are married (or can be), then gay sex is good.

This may be shocking to some but we must ensure the decline of the size and strength of the U.S. government in order to ensure the survival of this country and of orthodox Catholicism within this country. If by legalizing so-called gay marriage their movement hopes to weaken the hand of government to rule justly over society by extending greater “liberty,” then we need to ensure that we impose a dialectic on their ideology by encouraging people to undermine the secular state even further.

We must undermine the strength of government using the gay movement’s own rhetoric regarding liberty before the government is hijacked and turned against the Catholic Church. Our society is going into the toilet and we need to make sure to make the final flush. As the state weakens, Catholicism can step to the forefront as the strongest and largest Non Governmental Organization. The rebel’s zeal affirming the majesty of Church teachings together with the extrapolation of “liberty” to immunize us from tyrannical government oppression are the two flanks we must fight. Let the light of revolution emerge from the deep dark of our midnight.

 

[mosher]

The problem is that the Government cannot be put out of the “marriage business”. This is because the sole responsibility for the state according to the Natural Moral Law is the building up and protection of the human family so that it can flourish. In effect, the government exists because marriage exists. To divorce the government from its responsibilities under the Natural Moral Law to and for marriage would be to buy into the bad political philosophy, bad ethics, and in the end, bad theology.

 

[Ender]

I agree that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. They shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t get married. These are my beliefs. I also believe that everyone should honor their mothers and fathers, and that we should all go the Church on Sundays. In fact, I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches and believes.

But should we have laws that force nonbelievers to follow our beliefs? … Where would you draw the line?

Aquinas drew it here:

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

Ender

 

[EnglishTeacher]

The problem is that the Government cannot be put out of the “marriage business”. This is because the sole responsibility for the state according to the Natural Moral Law is the building up and protection of the human family so that it can flourish. In effect, the government exists because marriage exists. To divorce the government from its responsibilities under the Natural Moral Law to and for marriage would be to buy into the bad political philosophy, bad ethics, and in the end, bad theology.

I agree with this. The state must recognize and preserve marriage (between a man and a woman, of course) so that it can protect the rights of married people and families. Think of the laws and rights regarding inheritance, estates, marital property, and so forth, to name a just a few.

 

[mosher]

I agree with this. The state must recognize and preserve marriage (between a man and a woman, of course) so that it can protect the rights of married people and families. Think of the laws and rights regarding inheritance, estates, marital property, and so forth, to name a just a few.

Yes. But, not simply the practicalities. We have forgotten that the State is supposed to exist to provide the “space” within which we, as human persons, can live the life of virtue. One of the fundamental attributes of the human person is that the virtuous life is lived in community. The first and most foundational community is the human family. This is why a State can raise an Army; to defend the families in its boundaries. A State can collect taxes and use land for the sake of the common good. A State can establish police forces so that families can be protected from internal evildoers. Everything legitimate that a State does is always related back to helping the human family flourish so that virtues can flourish. Illegitimate actions of the State are those that are contrary to its very nature, i.e., contrary to helping the human family flourish.

Consider the legalisation of abortion. The law is invalid not simply because abortion itself is contrary to nature on account of the fundamental right to life of the child-in-utero. It is also contrary to nature on at least two other grounds. First, it is contrary to the nature of parenthood to kill their children. Second, it is contrary to the nature of the State to legitimize the previous two actions because both are contrary to the good of the human family.

We must also remember that natural marriage and the Sacrament of Matrimony are distinct. Marriage pre-existed the Sacrament of Matrimony. It is a natural institution. As such it is the responsibility of the State to regulate this human good. However, the State acts illegitimately when it establishes laws and norms that are contrary to the Natural Law; in this case with respect to natural marriage. The Church has governance over the Sacrament of Matrimony because it relates directly to the salvific mission of the Church. However, the Church cannot ordinarily regulate natural marriage (with certain specific caveats). However, the Church must act as a witness to both the Divine Law but also to the Natural Moral Law urging States to uphold their natural responsibility to act, i.e., legislate according to the Natural Moral Law and not contrary to it.

You are correct that there are a lot of little details that the State must regulate that relate to family life. However, it is not simply the details. This issue goes to the very heart of the nature of human society and its formal manifestation in the State.

 

[RosaryFan]

Homosexual marriage is not a sin, it is an oxymoron.

Your question is like asking: If allowing chickens to vote should be illegal, shouldn’t all other sins be illegal as well?

I like that!!

 

[tlimon]

The problem is that the Government cannot be put out of the “marriage business”. This is because the sole responsibility for the state according to the Natural Moral Law is the building up and protection of the human family so that it can flourish. In effect, the government exists because marriage exists. To divorce the government from its responsibilities under the Natural Moral Law to and for marriage would be to buy into the bad political philosophy, bad ethics, and in the end, bad theology.

I probably was not clear enough. The second part of my post intimated toward something larger. I do not simply want the government divorced from marriage; I want the government divorced period. The social fabric is ending. There are no Mayflowers or wagons west to escape despotism of overreaching government. I only support marriage being taken out of the hands of the state because I want everything taken out of the hands of the state (or at least this state). We have become immensely corrupt. We legitimize sodomy and pornography. We have allowed the murder of over 50 million innocents.

When can a Catholic in good conscience stop cooperating with the government and start undermining it? If we can nudge this particular government out as the prominent social actor in this society, the Church can grow within the power vacuum. In time, we can become powerful enough to be a prominent, if not the most prominent, voice in the reassessment of the social contract via a constitutional convention or something similar. The gay movement is taking controls of the mechanisms of state all over the western world and using it against the Church. I am suggesting that we slash the tires and pull some spark plugs. If liberty to them means licentiousness, then let them have it and let them destroy themselves with it.

 

[exoflare]

Homosexual marriage is not a sin, it is an oxymoron.

Thank you!! I have no idea why so many people don’t seem to understand this, even amongst the good guys.

 

[AndyF]

" shouldn’t all other sins be illegal as well?"

Absolutely. Modern society is determined to be a slave to all kinds of mortal sins.

“If homosexual marriage should be illegal”,

HS doesn’t need to be made illegal, it already is to the Being that counts, and that is the one that defines what is appropriate conduct in order to enter heaven.

Andy

 

[tafan]

" shouldn’t all other sins be illegal as well?"

Absolutely. Modern society is determined to be a slave to all kinds of mortal sins.

Are you sure about this answer? Why? Thomas Aquinas certainly had a different answer. Not all vices should be prhibited by human law. I am just repeating myself, from post 12, so I will let you read that. I think it unwise to try to legislate against all vices.

Aquinas’s rules were that laws should only prohibt vices that

1. the majority of the population are capable of abstaining from
2. chiefly those which hurt others and without a prohibition, human society could not be sustained

Now, I am not a libertarian. I certainly think pornography, abortion, etc should be prohibited by law. There is room for debate, and that is proper, as to which vices meet these requirements. But certainly not all vices should be prohibited.

 

[mosher]

I probably was not clear enough. The second part of my post intimated toward something larger. I do not simply want the government divorced from marriage; I want the government divorced period. The social fabric is ending. There are no Mayflowers or wagons west to escape despotism of overreaching government. I only support marriage being taken out of the hands of the state because I want everything taken out of the hands of the state (or at least this state). We have become immensely corrupt. We legitimize sodomy and pornography. We have allowed the murder of over 50 million innocents.

When can a Catholic in good conscience stop cooperating with the government and start undermining it? If we can nudge this particular government out as the prominent social actor in this society, the Church can grow within the power vacuum. In time, we can become powerful enough to be a prominent, if not the most prominent, voice in the reassessment of the social contract via a constitutional convention or something similar. The gay movement is taking controls of the mechanisms of state all over the western world and using it against the Church. I am suggesting that we slash the tires and pull some spark plugs. If liberty to them means licentiousness, then let them have it and let them destroy themselves with it.

I can understand your frustration. However, this is why God has given us the gift of an intellect that can make distinctions. We don’t have to affirm equally each part, law, etc., of a State. Rather, we simply need to affirm and abide by what is legitimate. What I mean by legitimate are those actions of the State that are consistent with the Natural Moral Law.

The secular State is a purely human foundation. As a result it will never be perfect in whole or its parts. I see your frustration as a good thing. It demonstrates a natural desire for the final recreation of the heavens and the earth at the Second coming. Yet, until then it is our lot to work for the common good through the means that are presented to us. So, be careful not to dispair in the State where it is consistent with the Natural Moral Law, but also turn your anger and frustation into action where the State is not in conformity with it.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

IDEALLY, YES, ALL sins should be considered Crimes.
After all, ALL sin is a crime agaiinst GOD, and THAT is far more serious, ultimately,
than a violation of civil law, because the consequences are eternal.
The fact that in modern society,
most “sins” are not, for legal purposes, considered “crimes,” allows
the majority of sinners to self-righteously bask in the warm glow of feeling
like they are not criminals deserving of any punishment in the least. This would
explain why vast numbers of people do not believe in hell and even resent
the idea of such a thing. And why these same people don’t mind sending
people to the slammer for the rest of their lives, vainly imagining that they themselves
have never done anything deserving of punishment. In ancient Israel, under the Mosaic law, all sins were crimes and all crimes were sins, and they were punished by
varying degrees. I don’t advocate penalties as stiff as those under the Mosaic Law, however, but still, it might make more people come to have a healthy Fear of God if all sins were recognized for what they really, in fact, are: criminal acts against God.

 

[mcrow]

The way I see it is that marriage is a sacrament and a religious institution. Therefore, any law that pertains to it needs to consider the beliefs of the religions of the the land. If you look at the 3 biggest religions (Islam,Christianity, Judaism). Islam and Christianity have a clear and strong stance on this and while the Jewish community seems more split, they generally think the same as the other two.

I guess if marriage wasn’t a religious institution, I wouldn’t care either way.

The thing that gets me about this is that gays can get all the same rights as a married couple anyway without a marriage.

Most insurance companies have “Life partner” coverage. You can draft a legal document to appoint each other power of attorney in case you are unable to care for yourself. You can name your partner the beneficiary of your estate and insurance benefits. I work in health care and have yet to see a gay person denied access to their partner while they were in the hospital.

I don’t care if they have these rights, just don’t call it a marriage.

 

[mosher]

IDEALLY, YES, ALL sins should be considered Crimes.
After all, ALL sin is a crime agaiinst GOD, and THAT is far more serious, ultimately,
than a violation of civil law, because the consequences are eternal.
The fact that in modern society,
most “sins” are not, for legal purposes, considered “crimes,” allows
the majority of sinners to self-righteously bask in the warm glow of feeling
like they are not criminals deserving of any punishment in the least. This would
explain why vast numbers of people do not believe in hell and even resent
the idea of such a thing. And why these same people don’t mind sending
people to the slammer for the rest of their lives, vainly imagining that they themselves
have never done anything deserving of punishment. In ancient Israel, under the Mosaic law, all sins were crimes and all crimes were sins, and they were punished by
varying degrees. I don’t advocate penalties as stiff as those under the Mosaic Law, however, but still, it might make more people come to have a healthy Fear of God if all sins were recognized for what they really, in fact, are: criminal acts against God.

I don’t know if this is the correct way of looking at things. We must take care to separate properly those issues that are under authority of the State and those that are under the authority of the Church. If we confuse the issue then we are forced into a position where the Church needs to have penal law against Catholics who run a Stop Sign and conversely the State would need penal law against liturgical abuse. This scenario doesn’t seem fitting.

 

[mosher]

The way I see it is that marriage is a sacrament and a religious institution.

I think I understand what you are getting at with this comment but there is a problem. Only marriages between Baptized persons is a Sacrament. Remember, that marriage was elevated by Christ to a Sacrament for us. This means that it was something that pre-existed the Christian dispensation. Further, Mosaic regulations of marriage are predated by the historical fact of marriage (for instance Adam and Eve). Marriage in itself is something that is part of the natural order. Even if there were no religion there would still be marriage.

 

[tafan]

The way I see it is that marriage is a sacrament and a religious institution.
.

Certainly marriage is a sacrament and a religious institution. But we should not forget it is also a societal institution. The family structure, headed by man and wife, is the foundation of society, that was God’s will.

 

[Alicia05]

The only reason we hear about gay marriage is because marriage has become a government licensed tax bracket. So the government charges you a fee to get married, but they also make money from breaking up marriages too (divorce court). God created marriage, not man, but man has corrupted it. We should make no laws about marriage at all, except that the government should have no right to regulate, tax, or create licenses for what is a divine institution.

So my answer to where we draw the line is this: We have the government take a few steps back, and then draw the line right in front of the part where we let the government charge hidden taxes in the form of licenses, thereby forcing upon us regulation upon regulation in order to make the taxation/licensing system fair for everyone. Simply put: get government out of the business of marriage.

That’s right! Why is the government involved in marriage to begin with?
An eye-opening article Don’t Let Government Define Marriage if anyone’s interested!

 

[LemonAndLime]

Because it fosters gender inequality. That’s one secular reason for outlawing it. The female couples will have more reproductive and custodial rights than the male couples, and they’ll also be able to pull in more money through child support and welfare than the men could.

That’s a bizarre argument. First time I’ve heard that one.