Marriage as Sacrament versus State Defined

[DrTaffy]

I am a student of their history…

And you think that this makes you more of an expert on their beliefs that they are? Arrogant enough, I would have thought, but even that point of view could be expressed far more politely and respectfully than you actually have done.

But the assertions of those who defined the “Two-Spirit” term, and the actual historic beliefs attached to the hwame (a non-offensive, accurate term for a physical male who was believed to have a female spirit, or vice-versa) are radically different.

Nope, O ‘student of their history’, the Mojave term ‘hwame’ only applied to physical females claimed to have male spiritual attributes. The physically male equivalent was ‘alyha’.

If you cannot get that right, shouldn’t you show more humility towards lecturing them on their beliefs?

I did not say that they were. What I said was that they were unions between two different genders

Which is irrelevant. What we have is a clear record of marriage between two people of the same sex. QED:shrug:

First, he described it as a “matrimonial ritual” - his own words. Second, they were indeed unions which involved two persons of the same sex. That’s what brotherhood is. To imagine that these unions were in any way homosexual in nature is an insult to both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

How is a union between two persons of the same sex not ‘homosexual’?

You’ve failed to demonstrate that I lied.

I have shown that you said something that is not true, something that you have not done for Boswell. And I did so only to try to show you how offensive and judgemental you are being.

Apologies - I meant “argument from ignorance”.

Also not true - and also arguably more applicable to you in as much as you have merely asserted that marriage has always been exclusively heterosexual and expect others to accept that unless they can disprove it.

Roman law clearly states what they considered to be a legal marriage.

Which does not include a clear statement that same sex couples don’t count.

As one would expect a compendium of laws to include laws governing the “marriage” of two male Roman citizens, or a male Roman and a male Latin, or a male Roman and a male alien, etc, an argument from silence has a valid application here.

No, the argument from silence is always a fallacy. It can count as evidence, but not proof.

The existing codes, while often couched in terms of male and female that you are trying to interpret as exclusive, cover same sex marriage perfectly well enough. The absence of a clear statement invalidating the marriages that we know were taking place is harder to explain away if they were indeed invalid.

 

[BOProof]

If I am a taxpayer, the legal recognition requires that some of my taxes are used to subsidize any tax breaks or other financial benefits that gay couples would now enjoy. If you respond to anything in this post, please respond to this last point. I would like to see how you show that this is not requiring something of me. Paying taxes is not passive tolerance. It is an act on my part.

Same-sex couples who pay taxes are forced to subsidize tax breaks that are offered to opposite-sex couples. If they have to pay for tax breaks on offer to other couples, it make sense that they are offered the same in return (unless there is a very good secular reason to deny those couples what is offered to other couples, which I don’t think there is). That’s part of the reason why I think banning civil same-sex marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the US constitution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Same-sex couples who pay taxes are forced to subsidize tax breaks that are offered to opposite-sex couples. If they have to pay for tax breaks on offer to other couples, it make sense that they are offered the same in return (unless there is a very good secular reason to deny those couples what is offered to other couples, which I don’t think there is). That’s part of the reason why I think banning civil same-sex marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the US constitution.

It is also true that single persons are forced to subsidize tax breaks to married couples, so by your logic, it is only fair that single people receive those tax breaks in return. For that matter, unmarried couples are forced to subsidize tax breaks for married couples, so unmarried couples should get tax breaks too. If your “equal protection” argument means anything, it means that everyone should get the same tax breaks. Is that what you are saying?

 

[BOProof]

BOProof;11566170:

Same-sex couples who pay taxes are forced to subsidize tax breaks that are offered to opposite-sex couples. If they have to pay for tax breaks on offer to other couples, it make sense that they are offered the same in return (unless there is a very

good secular reason to deny those couples what is offered to other couples, which I don’t think there is). That’s part of the reason why I think banning civil same-sex marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the US constitution.

It is also true that single persons are forced to subsidize tax breaks to married couples, so by your logic, it is only fair that single people receive those tax breaks in return.

…unless there is a sufficiently good reason to the contrary, as I noted in the post you quoted (see the bold).

If your “equal protection” argument means anything, it means that everyone should get the same tax breaks. Is that what you are saying?

My equal protection means that the government needs a sufficiently good secular reason in order to grant a benefit to one person/organization but not to another. For example, there may be a good reason to segregate public restrooms on the basis of sex, but not to segregate public schools on the basis of race.

At times, whether there is a sufficiently good secular reason can be debatable. However, tradition is generally not a sufficiently good reason to deny benefits to people, especially to groups of marginalized people. Also, combinations of immutable physical characteristics (e.g., mixed-races and same-sexes) are generally not sufficiently good reasons for denying benefits to couples.

I think that if there is not a sufficiently good secular reason to deny same-sex couples what is offered to opposite-sex couples, such differential treatment is both immoral and unconstitutional.

 

[DrTaffy]

It is also true that single persons are forced to subsidize tax breaks to married couples, so by your logic, it is only fair that single people receive those tax breaks in return.

What tax breaks? The tax breaks I am aware of that apply to married couples make no sense if you try to apply them to a single person. For example, a lower earning spouse being able to pass on unused tax-free allowance to the higher-earning spouse makes no sense when applied to a single person.

For that matter, unmarried couples are forced to subsidize tax breaks for married couples, so unmarried couples should get tax breaks too.

The unmarried couple can get the tax breaks by choosing to make the commitment of marriage. So they are not absolutely denied them. And there is a good secular argument for offering tax breaks to those couples who have made such a commitment.

You, on the other hand, are demanding that same sex couples subsidise your marriage, while refusing them even the right to get married at all on the grounds that you refuse to subsidise their marriage.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The unmarried couple can get the tax breaks by choosing to make the commitment of marriage. So they are not absolutely denied them. And there is a good secular argument for offering tax breaks to those couples who have made such a commitment…

What good secular reason is there for granting tax breaks to married couples, and how do those arguments apply to same sex couples?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The unmarried couple can get the tax breaks by choosing to make the commitment of marriage. So they are not absolutely denied them. .

How can you discriminate against deeply committed couples whose philosophy prevents them from sharing that commitment with the government?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But at least in the Colorado case (haven’t there been a couple of these cases?) the baker refused to supply any kind of cake for the weddings, even commodity cupcakes…Catholic Schools who fire teachers… who just referred to her girlfriend at her mothers’ funeral (i.e. not even at school),…

You are not going to get me to lend support to people who inflict these and other injustices against gays. Nor will I support their hypocritical motivations. You would know that if you bothered to find out a little more about me by reading what I wrote in this thread on dancing in Texas.

…it is not even clear to me how every (or even many) teachers would be required to teach any such thing…

Social Studies - a required elementary school subject. This curriculum content has already become required in Canada.

In other words you already pay taxes. As do homosexuals and their allies. Just as atheists have to accept tax breaks going to churches, you cannot insist that nobody you don’t like get tax breaks - especially when these are tax breaks that heterosexual couples already enjoy.

If tax breaks were things that everyone deserves, then there is no point to tax breaks. If there are going to be targeted tax breaks, they only make sense if some people don’t get them. Otherwise you might as well just call it an across-the-board tax reduction. If you don’t think churches should get tax breaks, then it is your right and your duty to campaign against them. By the same token, if I don’t think gay marriage makes sense as an institution that benefits society, I have a right and a duty to express that view, which is all I am doing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

At times, whether there is a sufficiently good secular reason can be debatable. However, tradition is generally not a sufficiently good reason to deny benefits to people, especially to groups of marginalized people. Also, combinations of immutable physical characteristics (e.g., mixed-races and same-sexes) are generally not sufficiently good reasons for denying benefits to couples.

I can think of several immutable physical characteristics that are good reasons to denying the right to become civilly married. If two children under the age of 5 years want to get married, they can be denied. If a group of 3 people want to get married, they can be denied, just because their total is 3 instead of 2. Is it just “tradition” that prevents 3 people from getting married? I prefer to think that the reason 3 people cannot get married is that marriage is a social institution that has developed to mirror the natural law institution of marriage as a man and a woman, and that adds up to 2 people. It is true that a same-sex couple also adds up to 2, but why would you accept one consequence of natural law marriage (that it involves 2 people) and not accept another consequence (that those two people are a man and a woman)?

I think that if there is not a sufficiently good secular reason to deny same-sex couples what is offered to opposite-sex couples, such differential treatment is both immoral and unconstitutional.

It is not so much a question of needing reasons to deny civil marriage. It is more of a question of needing a reason to actively recognize it.

 

[BOProof]

If two children under the age of 5 years want to get married, they can be denied.

That would be an obvious exception, due to good reasons, to the generality I mentioned earlier about physical characteristics generally not being a good reason to deny marriage. Now the question is whether there is a sufficiently good reason to offer people civil marriage (together with all of its benefits) to a wide range of people, but to deny some people those same benefits solely on the basis of gender?

It is not so much a question of needing reasons to deny civil marriage. It is more of a question of needing a reason to actively recognize it.

Given the fact that the government already recognizes many relationships as marriages, and grants benefits to those couples, there needs to be a very good reason in order for the government to justifiably deny it to some particular couples that meet a certain criteria. Each of those restrictions (such as age, races, genders, number of individuals involved, et cetera) must stand or fall on their own merit. For now, I want to stay on the topic of same-sex marriage.

So what is the reason that justifies offering marriage (along with all of its benefits) to most couples, but to deny it to some others couples simply on the basis of gender (especially considering that they already have to subsidize all of those marriages)?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

For now, I want to stay on the topic of same-sex marriage

Is it because you can’t think of a good reason to deny marriage to 3 people? I think it is entirely appropriate to consider these cases to give context to the question of same-sex marriage. If you can’t justify why 3 people can’t get married, why should I have to justify why 2 same-sex people can’t get married? Alternatively, you could take the position that 3-way marriage should also be allowed.

 

[BOProof]

I think it is entirely appropriate to consider these cases to give context to the question of same-sex marriage.

If you think that whether people should be denied marriage based on the number of people in the marriage has anything to do with whether people should be denied marriage based on the genders of the people involved, then explain how and keep the conversation on topic. Otherwise, I’ll consider your attempts to get me to discuss polygamous/polyamorous marriage to be baiting me to go off topic.

Remember, you claimed that taxpayers (which includes same-sex couples) are forced to subsidize marriages. What excuse do you have for demanding that they be forced to subsidize the marriages of other people, yet for them to be denied the same subsidy in return simply because of the gender of the person they want to marry?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you think that whether people should be denied marriage based on the number of people in the marriage has anything to do with whether people should be denied marriage based on the genders of the people involved, then explain how and keep the conversation on topic.

OK, here is the relevance. You claim that marriage should not be denied to same sex couples. The only support you give for this claim is the principle that it should be done unless there is “a sufficiently good secular reason in order to grant a benefit to one person/organization but not to another.” You then invite me to produce such a reason for same sex marriage. Instead of trying to produce such a reason, I choose to refute your argument by attacking the principle itself - the very principle on which you base your argument. My method is reductio ad absurdum. I start by assuming your principle is true and show that it leads to an absurdity - or at least to a conclusion that you are not willing to accept (It is not actually absurd). So I start with the assumption (which you need) that marriage should be granted unless there is a sufficiently good secular reason not to do so. I test that principle by applying it to 3-way marriage. If the core principle on which you base your argument is true, then you have to either (1) admit that 3-way marriage ought to be civilly recognized too, or (2) admit that your principle needs narrowing so that it only applies to 2-person marriages. If you choose (2), then you will have to come up an entirely separate principle on which to make that distinction. I am anxious to see which path you take.

 

[minder]

Marriage is marriage i.e. That is the union of a man and a woman , hopefully very much in love , in communion with God and with the ability to procreate without the interference of a third person in any way shape or form . There is no such thing as gay marriage no matter who erroneously thinks there is . It does not exist . If the state chooses to recognise an untruth that is their problem , however the Church maybe should look at a new name for the sacrament which will establish the exact identity of the sacramental union of man and woman in the divine purpose of procreation in the infinite understanding of God .
Gay marriage is an untruth .
This is not to say that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex living in a completely moral manner should not be recognised but it may not be called Marriage .
To condone the use of the term marriage in relationships between same sex couples is giving in to the secularisation of the world which is can only be described as an evil force

 

[BOProof]

You claim that marriage should not be denied to same sex couples. The only support you give for this claim is the principle that it should be done unless there is “a sufficiently good secular reason in order to grant a benefit to one person/organization but not to another.” You then invite me to produce such a reason for same sex marriage. Instead of trying to produce such a reason, I choose to refute your argument by attacking the principle itself - the very principle on which you base your argument. My method is reductio ad absurdum. I start by assuming your principle is true and show that it leads to an absurdity - or at least to a conclusion that you are not willing to accept (It is not actually absurd).

My position is that if the government is going to offer benefits to most couples, then such benefits shouldn’t be denied to couples unless there is a sufficiently good reason for doing so (such as not allowing children to marry). In order for you to use a reductio ad absurdum argument (grant the premise and show that it leads to an absurd conclusion) with my position and 3-way marriage, you need to do both of the following:

1 Demonstrate that the conclusion that 3-way marriages should be granted is absurd.
2 Demonstrate that there are no sufficiently good reason to deny 3-way marriages (since my position is that if, and only if, there is a sufficiently good reason to deny marriage to a person, but not to others, should it be done).

In other words, you’d have to simultaneously think that granting 3-way marriages are absurd, yet think there is no reason to think that 3-way marriages are absurd!

Are you seriously willing to admit that you think there are no good reasons to ban 3-way marriages, while simultaneously affirming that such marriages should be denied?

If the core principle on which you base your argument is true, then you have to either (1) admit that 3-way marriage ought to be civilly recognized too, or (2) admit that your principle needs narrowing so that it only applies to 2-person marriages.

…or (3) that there is a sufficiently good reason to deny 3-way marriages.

Now, is there any good reason why same-sex couples should be forced to subsidize marriages of opposite-sex couples, yet not be able to receive those same benefits with their own boyfriends/girlfriends?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My position is that if the government is going to offer benefits to most couples, then such benefits shouldn’t be denied to couples unless there is a sufficiently good reason for doing so (such as not allowing children to marry). In order for you to use a reductio ad absurdum argument (grant the premise and show that it leads to an absurd conclusion) with my position and 3-way marriage, you need to do both of the following:

1 Demonstrate that the conclusion that 3-way marriages should be granted is absurd.
2 Demonstrate that there are no sufficiently good reason to deny 3-way marriages (since my position is that if, and only if, there is a sufficiently good reason to deny marriage to a person, but not to others, should it be done).

In other words, you’d have to simultaneously think that granting 3-way marriages are absurd, yet think there is no reason to think that 3-way marriages are absurd!

Are you seriously willing to admit that you think there are no good reasons to ban 3-way marriages, while simultaneously affirming that such marriages should be denied?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding my argument? I laid it out quite clearly in my last posting. You put forth an argument for legal same-sex marriage based on a principle that you spelled out. I am challenging that principle.

For sake of argument, I claim that 3-way marriage should not be recognized by civil law. I think you agree with me on this point, so there is no need to argue it. Can we at least agree on that?

Secondly, I claim that there is no “sufficiently good secular reason not to grant legal recognition to 3-way marriage.” Can we agree on this point too without argument?

This is not an inconsistency on my part because I do not hold your core principle that any granting of marriage should be allowed unless there is this sufficiently good secular reason not to do so. Therefore I can hold that 3-way marriage is both (1) not harmful to society and yet (2) should not be allowed. My reason for not allowing it is not that it would do any harm, but that it would not do sufficient good to justify the recognition. You, on the other hand, are bound by your principle that you used to support same sex marriage. That principle prevents you from holding both (1) and (2) regarding 3-way marriage. But since you do hold (1) and (2) regarding 3-way marriage, the principle that says you can’t do that must be flawed. That is the reductio ad absurdum. Now if you are going to continue to maintain that same sex marriage should be allowed by law, you need to come up with a another reason to support it, for the initial reason you chose has been shown to be faulty.

 

[DrTaffy]

What good secular reason is there for granting tax breaks to married couples, and how do those arguments apply to same sex couples?

This would be a lot easier to answer for a specific tax break - especially as I am not too convinced that couples should get a generic tax break (e.g. a flat lower rate of tax) just for being married.

An example for a specific tax ‘break’ would be the sharing of tax-free allowances between spouses. This effectively recognises the fact that the couple is now a single economic unit, and from a utilitarian point of view encourages arrangements that are beneficial to society, such as one spouse concentrating entirely on his/her high earning (and therefore hopefully valuable to society) job while the other spouse either quits or cuts back on a lower earning job to concentrate on tasks such as housework or raising kids.

More general advantages that should apply to most ‘tax breaks’ for spouses:
those in long term relationships tend to be happier
those in long term relationships tend to be more productive members of society
monogamous couples reduce chances of STDs
committed couples will look after eachother in sickness or old age, reducing burden on society
couples make more efficient use of the available housing stock
couples are better able than singles to raise kids, or even start businesses

And so on. It is a big topic

How can you discriminate against deeply committed couples whose philosophy prevents them from sharing that commitment with the government?

I don’t get it. They are not being discriminated against, they are choosing not to notify the government of their status and so choosing not to receive any related benefits.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t get it. They are not being discriminated against, they are choosing not to notify the government of their status and so choosing not to receive any related benefits.

Well, then, gay people are choosing to pair up with those of the same sex. If they could just pair up with members of the opposite sex, they could reap all the societal benefits of marriage.

 

[DrTaffy]

You are not going to get me to lend support to people who inflict these and other injustices against gays. Nor will I support their hypocritical motivations. You would know that if you bothered to find out a little more about me by reading what I wrote in this thread on dancing in Texas.

I am not trying to ‘get you to do’ anything other than clarify your views. As this is a Catholic Forum, and you state your religion as ‘Catholic’, it is true that, unless stated otherwise I tend to assume that you are espousing the mainstream Catholic viewpoint, but I don’t feel this is unreasonable and certainly no insult was intended. My apologies if you did feel offended.

So could you clarify what you think would be ‘reasonable accomodation’ on the issue of teachers expressing views on same sex marriage? You apparently reject both the Catholic view (or at least the CAF view) that Catholic schools should be able to fire teachers for dissenting from Catholic Doctrine even at home, and the liberal view that any school can control what teachers say or do in class, but not at home.

My own view would be that:

1. 
   *]The golden rule applies. No fair claiming one rule for ‘us’ and a different one for everyone else
   *]In this light, I would go with the liberal view cited above, with ‘reasonable accomodation’ where possible for a teacher in any school to try to arrange for a substitute to teach any topics he or she is uncomfortable with, without prejudice.
   

   Social Studies - a required elementary school subject.

   So it is not the case that a Catholic would not be able to teach at all, just that a Catholic would not be able to teach that one specific subject. Indeed, Catholics would not be barred from doing so, but would be choosing not to do so as a result of their religious beliefs.
   
   Consider the parallel claim of a strict Jew insisting that all butchers should be banned from selling pork, as otherwise his religious views prohibiting him from handling pork would mean that he was barred from being able to work in a butcher’s shop. Reasonable?
   

   This curriculum content has already become required in Canada.

   Meaning that even Catholic schools with no state funding would be required to teach that same sex marriage was “just as normal as mom and dad”? If so, and if you have not overstated what they are required to teach, I would agree that that is unreasonable. Do you have a cite? And is this intrinsically a problem of gay marriage being legalised, or about state control of schools?
   

   By the same token, if I don’t think gay marriage makes sense as an institution that benefits society, I have a right and a duty to express that view, which is all I am doing.

   So you do not agree that voting for a law opposing gay marriage is doing more than just expressing an opinion that marriage should be solely heterosexual, but is actively trying to force that view on others?
   
   If I vote for a law that Catholic employer’s medical cover should pay for abortion or contraception for their employees, am I equally blameless?

 

[DrTaffy]

I can think of several immutable physical characteristics that are good reasons to denying the right to become civilly married. If two children under the age of 5 years want to get married, they can be denied.

Age is not an immutable physical characteristic. Two 3 year olds can get married if they wait until they are of age (and still wish to).

For sake of argument, I claim that 3-way marriage should not be recognized by civil law.
…]
Secondly, I claim that there is no “sufficiently good secular reason not to grant legal recognition to 3-way marriage.”

So you wish to impose your personal beliefs (that same sex or polygamous marriage be banned) on the rest of society, but admit that you have no “sufficiently good secular reason” to justify that belief. So why can others not force their views on you with as little justification?

It comes down to the broader question of how you decide which of your views should you expect to force others to follow?