My personal take on gay "marriage"

[thecolorsblend]

Because I’m libertarian, I believe in government acting strictly within the limits proscribed by the Constitution. The idea of the First amendment is that religious belief, or lack thereof, should not be allowed to influence secular legislation.

That has never been the intent of the First Amendment. The entire Bill of Rights is intended to limit the federal government; not We the People. Yours is not a libertarian argument; it’s a cookie-cutter liberal argument. A libertarian argument would be advocating this be decided on a state-by-state basis.

Therefore, I welcome all attempts to undercut religious freedom loopholes for non-discrimination against LGBT people. It is NOT, in my view, the government’s place to legislate morality.

That’s interesting in that many same-sex union advocates view the matter in exclusively moral terms.

But if government isn’t supposed to legislate morality, why is murder a capital crime in several states? Why can embezzlement get someone sent to prison? Those are all moral issues.

Lawmaking is all about legislating someone’s morality. What’s changing lately is which set of moral parameters is being advocated by the legal system.

When it comes to the gay agenda, I really don’t care about the “gay” part. The “agenda” part so far has been pernicious, toxic and harmful.

 

[thecolorsblend]

So how should a society, especially a multicultural and multi-religious society, decide what is moral or immoral?

My usual answer to this would be putting the matter to a referendum… but that was precisely what we did in America and it didn’t yield the results the LGBT bunch wanted so now there’s a SCOTUS decision telling everybody what they should do.

Should certain varieties of Christianity be the yardstick for making this determination?

Your argument presupposes that the objection many people have to same-sex unions is religious, and specifically Christian in nature. Frankly I find that to be a bit presumptuous.

But even if the resistance was entirely Christian in nature, the answer to your question is “Yes, absolutely”. This isn’t an Islamic, jewish, Sikh, secularist or whatever else country. The dominant religious influence in this country has always been Christian. Members of those non-Christian religions did not found this country, they did not write our founding documents, they did not build this country, they have contributed virtually nothing (and certainly very little positive) to American culture and in a sane world, their influence would be so minimal as to be non-existent.

 

[ialsop]

You’re not a Catholic, as I can be more moderate in criticism. I firmly hold, that libertarianism, both politically and economically, is decisively contrary to Christianity, and to natural reason as well. Freedom is indeed a positive good, but not the ultimate positive good, this belongs either to Truth (according to the Thomists) or Goodness (according to Augustinians and Scotists). Faith, that assent of the intellect to dogmatic propositions on the authority of God, is the root of all Christian virtue, and charity, whereby we love God for His own sake is the perfection of it; nothing else counts (cf. Gal. 5:6). Moreover, all men were created for the same end, namely the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision. To asser that everyone determines his own happiness is manifesty contrary to sound Christian faith.

As regards the argument from the First Amendment, we ought to put these arguments away; the Constitution is by no means inspired, and it can be justly criticized where need be. Let us establish then arguments based on reason and Divine faith. Should the secular and sacred be kept with their realms? Sure. Should they be wholly separate? No, not in the least. Such a thinking is completely contrary to Christianity, a religion which teaches the God became a man, and lived among men as men do. The Divine and human, supernatural and natural are united intimately. Why should we seek to put asunder to what God has joined? Why should laws not be influenced by faith, which confirms reason and moreover elevates it? Perhaps faith is not absolutely certain? On the contrary, the truths of faith are more certain than anything known by reason, since God Himself reveals them. Part of the reason God has given man revelation is also to guide our reason to those truths which can be known solely with our reason, but because of the difficulty in proving them, would likely be infected with numerous errors. This truth the First Vatican Council declares beautifully:

Consequently, there’s no reason to reject the guidance of revelation unless one does not believe in it.

As to religious freedom objections in discrimination, I say that to treat the just and the unjust equally is persecution of the just. It is a duty of the state to give preference to the good over those who do evil. In otherwords, our piety is not equal to your iniquity. The government does have a role in morality. Of the four cardinal virtues, the duty of the state consists primarily in ensuring the virtue of justice is upheld. Thus, I can grant that fornication and masturbation and the like ought not to be punished by the state, since they involve no injustice against any other man, at least not proximately. But to forbid those who wish to maintain a moral enviornment even in their workplace, is a positie injustice to them. We must get rid of the idea that the morally good are equal to the morally wicked.

Obiously, I agree with you that Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, even if it is corrupted (agains the will of God) at times. It is true that after the fall and before Christ God did permit imperfect marriages, but as the text of Genesis 1-3 makes clear, monogamy and indissolubility is the ideal. Again, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the second point, although I would shift the emphasis away from freedom and over to justice. It is an injustice to compel evil, plain and simple. Thus to force the Church to perform such pseudo-marriages is not ony extrinsically unjust, in that it forced the Church to do something against her holy faith, but per se unjust because of the intrinsic perversity of same-sex “marriages”.

These are just my thoughts, influenced by Sacred Scripture, the fathers, the Church and reason.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Thorolfr]

My usual answer to this would be putting the matter to a referendum… but that was precisely what we did in America and it didn’t yield the results the LGBT bunch wanted so now there’s a SCOTUS decision telling everybody what they should do.

Your argument presupposes that the objection many people have to same-sex unions is religious, and specifically Christian in nature. Frankly I find that to be a bit presumptuous.

But even if the resistance was entirely Christian in nature, the answer to your question is “Yes, absolutely”. This isn’t an Islamic, jewish, Sikh, secularist or whatever else country. The dominant religious influence in this country has always been Christian. Members of those non-Christian religions did not found this country, they did not write our founding documents, they did not build this country, they have contributed virtually nothing (and certainly very little positive) to American culture and in a sane world, their influence would be so minimal as to be non-existent.

What about Native Americans? Are they a part of American culture? Many of them have religious beliefs and cultural practices that are not Christian. For example, what are sometimes called two-spirit individuals are perhaps comparable to gay men and lesbians in that they do not fit the usual gender or sexual roles:

Two-spirits might have relationships with people of either sex.[25] According to Lang, female assigned at birth two-spirits usually have sexual relations or marriages with only females.

Two-spirit individuals are viewed in some tribes as having two identities occupying one body. Their dress is usually a mixture of traditionally male and traditionally female articles, or they may dress as a man one day, and a woman on another. According to Dr. Sabine Lang, a German anthropologist, many tribes have distinct gender and social roles.[18] Some specific roles sometimes held by male assigned at birth two-spirits include:

conveyors of oral traditions and songs (Yuki);
foretellers of the future (Winnebago, Oglala Lakota);
conferrers of lucky names on children or adults (Oglala Lakota, Tohono O’odham);
potters (Zuni, Navajo, Tohono O’odham);
matchmakers (Cheyenne, Omaha, Oglala Lakota);
makers of feather regalia for dances (Maidu);
special role players in the Sun Dance (Crow, Hidatsa, Oglala Lakota).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

 

[tinamn]

I’ve posted similar on other threads, but here’s my thoughts on it all.

I do lean towards libertarian - however, I’m not so naive as to think it’s the answer to all our problems, or that it wouldn’t cause serious problems itself.

However, I do believe that the government shouldn’t be passing laws to ban homosexual unions. Because the government is not bound by a specific religion, we shouldn’t expect the laws to reflect a specific religion. Obviously, that’s a bit idealistic - a politician’s beliefs effect the policies he/she pushes through.

Here’s what I always bring up when people ask me about why, as a Christian, I believe homosexuals should be able to get married (or a civil union, if you will): Let’s say this country did not have a Christian majority - instead, it’s an Islamic majority. Would the Christians be upset with the Islamic majority/Islamic politicians started pressing for laws that make not following the traditions/beliefs of their religion illegal? I tend to think we’d all be pretty unhappy about that.

So if my faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin, but the current culture I live in says it’s not (because they don’t have the same moral standards that we do as Christians) - why should my faith dictate what is illegal to people who don’t hold my faith? Just so long as it goes both ways - if I’m not going to push for gay marriage being illegal, society better not push the other way and say my church must preach that gay marriage is a sin.

As for the whole natural law thing - sure, homosexuality is against the natural law when you consider reproduction. But if you’re not a Catholic, that doesn’t really matter anymore because most people don’t consider surrogacy or IVF treatments to be a sin, so now even homosexual couples can have children. I believe there are even technologies either brand new or just around the corner to allow homosexual couples to have children who have both of their DNA.

I’m not saying I believe those things are right, or moral. I’m just saying that not everyone shares our moral beliefs, and we don’t have the right to force our morals on someone else who doesn’t share our beliefs.

For those that will come back with “well, what about murder!!” - there are some pretty obvious things in most societies that are considered immoral/wrong that transcend a religion telling us they’re immoral or wrong. We don’t need a religion to tell us murder is wrong (though, sadly, apparently we do if we’re talking about the unborn - which is another issue altogether).

 

[clem456]

…
So if my faith tells me that homosexuality is a sin, but the current culture I live in says it’s not (because they don’t have the same moral standards that we do as Christians) - why should my faith dictate what is illegal to people who don’t hold my faith? Just so long as it goes both ways - if I’m not going to push for gay marriage being illegal, society better not push the other way and say my church must preach that gay marriage is a sin.

As for the whole natural law thing - sure, homosexuality is against the natural law when you consider reproduction. But if you’re not a Catholic, that doesn’t really matter anymore because most people don’t consider surrogacy or IVF treatments to be a sin, so now even homosexual couples can have children. I believe there are even technologies either brand new or just around the corner to allow homosexual couples to have children who have both of their DNA.

I’m not saying I believe those things are right, or moral. I’m just saying that not everyone shares our moral beliefs, and we don’t have the right to force our morals on someone else who doesn’t share our beliefs.

For those that will come back with “well, what about murder!!” - there are some pretty obvious things in most societies that are considered immoral/wrong that transcend a religion telling us they’re immoral or wrong. We don’t need a religion to tell us murder is wrong (though, sadly, apparently we do if we’re talking about the unborn - which is another issue altogether).

Do you believe that human beings have a right to eat?
How about a right to decent housing?
Clothing?
Self expression?

Not everyone shares those beliefs. I think I can assume that you would be in favor of “forcing” people to care for others? Make sure they have food by force of taxation and social programs? Rather than say “force”, don’t we advocate for what we know to be right and just?
And there are those who don’t naturally “get it”, that murder is wrong. Or that letting people starve is cruel. So you and I must speak up when others don’t share our beliefs.

Why should you speak up about some ideas and not others?
It seems you want to isolate what you consider purely religious issues from the rest of life. How is that possible? The people who permit all kinds of evil have beliefs, and they want us to follow them, or allow them.

Why should your beliefs be hiding in the corner?

 

[ialsop]

So how should a society, especially a multicultural and multi-religious society, decide what is moral or immoral? Should certain varieties of Christianity be the yardstick for making this determination? A Muslim, for example, would consider polygamy to be perfectly moral since it is explicitly allowed in the Qur’an. So whose standards of morality should be used in deciding whether polygamy is moral in an increasingly multicultural and multi-religious society? There are up to 2.75 million Muslims in the US.

This problem shows exactly why democracy is such an incompetent form of government. There can never be any true measure of morality.

 

[tinamn]

Do you believe that human beings have a right to eat?
How about a right to decent housing?
Clothing?
Self expression?

Not everyone shares those beliefs. I think I can assume that you would be in favor of “forcing” people to care for others? Make sure they have food by force of taxation and social programs? Rather than say “force”, don’t we advocate for what we know to be right and just?
And there are those who don’t naturally “get it”, that murder is wrong. Or that letting people starve is cruel. So you and I must speak up when others don’t share our beliefs.

Why should you speak up about some ideas and not others?
It seems you want to isolate what you consider purely religious issues from the rest of life. How is that possible? The people who permit all kinds of evil have beliefs, and they want us to follow them, or allow them.

Why should your beliefs be hiding in the corner?

Eating, taking care of people, etc - those things affect other people, therefore most societies (sure, maybe not all, but definitely ours) assume that neglecting people, starving someone, murdering someone - are wrong. There’s a list (maybe shorter than it should be) of generally accepted things that are considered to be wrong.

Two women or two men “marrying” each other doesn’t hurt other people. You might say it erodes morals, but again I say - whose morals? If you firmly believe it’s a sin, don’t do it. Seeing others do it doesn’t make you sin. The Church calls it disordered - those people feel disordered when they are called to be what the Church says they should be. Them having a declared-by-the-church disordered relationship doesn’t affect the Church. We have our beliefs, they have theirs. If it harms themselves, then that’s something they have to deal with.

I never said I’d hide my beliefs. I just don’t see that I need to take something that is my belief (homosexuality is a sin) and make it illegal. If society as a whole decides it’s a sin, let the collective society make it illegal.

Part of being a Christian is not doing things we believe or are convicted of as being sinful, immoral, wrong, etc - even if the culture/society we live in believes those things to be right. Some people believe they should bring those things to legislature, and make laws in regards to them. I just feel that I am strong enough in my faith that even if something is legal, I won’t all the sudden just decide that our earthly laws take precedence over my Christian morals.

How about alcohol? There are a number of different denominations that believe all alcohol is wrong and a sin - even a glass of wine with dinner - not just overdoing it. Should they become the majority of our population, we could go back to prohibition if we allow people to use their religious beliefs to make laws. I’m sure there are Catholics who may be convicted to same idea of all alcohol being bad - but, in my experience, most are plenty happy to have a drink here or there. Can’t imagine people would be super excited (and many would drink anyway, just the way they did during the actual prohibition).

 

[GEddie]

This problem shows exactly why democracy is such an incompetent form of government. There can never be any true measure of morality.

1. We are not, and never were, a democracy. Dig out your old civics book.
2. Were we a democracy, this issue would not have surfaced. The alternatively-sexual and progressive sectors do not compose a majority of the citizenry.
3. What would you replace “democracy” with? Kingdoms and nobilities have problems every bit as deep rooted.

ICXC NIKA

 

[clem456]

Eating, taking care of people, etc - those things affect other people, therefore most societies (sure, maybe not all, but definitely ours) assume that neglecting people, starving someone, murdering someone - are wrong. There’s a list (maybe shorter than it should be) of generally accepted things that are considered to be wrong.

Two women or two men “marrying” each other doesn’t hurt other people. You might say it erodes morals, but again I say - whose morals? If you firmly believe it’s a sin, don’t do it. Seeing others do it doesn’t make you sin. The Church calls it disordered - those people feel disordered when they are called to be what the Church says they should be. Them having a declared-by-the-church disordered relationship doesn’t affect the Church. We have our beliefs, they have theirs. If it harms themselves, then that’s something they have to deal with.

I never said I’d hide my beliefs. I just don’t see that I need to take something that is my belief (homosexuality is a sin) and make it illegal. If society as a whole decides it’s a sin, let the collective society make it illegal.
…

This is quicksand morality. Or more accurately it is not morality, it is the will to power, popular rule, might makes right, morality by consensus, relativism. However you want to call it.
It’s the idea that popular whim determines morality, rather than basing morality on some objective standard.

The problem is not all societies or parties-in-power will agree nicely with what you currently deem “wrong”. Look at history. What you currently deem to be wrong has been considered by other folks to be “weeding out the gene pool” etc…all for the ostensible good of their particular society, and frequently with a big harrumph of approval from the general public. The fact that a big bunch of people stand up and agree with something, doesn’t begin to make it moral.

And it is simply false that society’s acceptance of homosexual unions as “marriage” doesn’t harm anyone. The harm might not be obvious, but it is harm nonetheless.

The idea that homosexuality is a sin is not a belief, it’s an observation. It is true that the word “sin” is religiously loaded, but the term “sin” expresses a separation from what is good for human beings. Since we are called to believe in what is good for human beings, we observe what is ordered to that good, and what is not.

I don’t have the time, but there are reams of discussion here detailing why societies’ equation of homosexual unions with marriage is harmful.

 

[Thorolfr]

This problem shows exactly why democracy is such an incompetent form of government. There can never be any true measure of morality.

So do you think we should have a theocracy?

 

[ialsop]

1. We are not, and never were, a democracy. Dig out your old civics book.
2. Were we a democracy, this issue would not have surfaced. The alternatively-sexual and progressive sectors do not compose a majority of the citizenry.
3. What would you replace “democracy” with? Kingdoms and nobilities have problems every bit as deep rooted.

ICXC NIKA

1. Yes, I realize we are Republic, but democracy and Republics could be given the same criticism. People choosing morality, through representatives or directly, is no good.
2. Interesting. Maybe because I am mostly around youth, I didn’t realize this. I would be curious to see what convinces you of that.
3. Well, any sort of government system that gives people the freedom to do what is good, and has the authority to weed out what is wrong. Could be a Republic, could be a Kingdom. What matters is that not all ideologies would be treated equally. Far from it. Those that pose a danger to the health of the people(gay “marriage”) would be locked down, but those that are neutral or good would be free to act. I definitely don’t claim to have the only solution, or even a coherently working one.

 

[ialsop]

So do you think we should have a theocracy?

We definitely don’t have to have a theocracy. I am open to many forms of government. Anything that has the authority to weed out unhealthy trends in the nation(gay "marriage) but gives freedom to good things(pro life movements).

If that has to be a theocracy, I think that’s be better than what we have currently. Bit again, we don’t need one.

Any secular government with common sense, and the right balance of authority and liberty, could do that.

 

[clem456]

Every society is an “-ocracy” of some type. Fill in your blank.
Seems to me it’s a relatively modern development that anything but religion can influence our social and civic life.

While I don’t consider the US to be a strictly and overtly Christian country, it is founded on Christian principles. So in that sense yes, we are a Christian nation.

 

[Latinitas]

So do you think we should have a theocracy?

We already live in a theocracy - the whole is ruled by the Three Divine Persons, whether we like it or not. The question is whether we acknowledge this Truth and conform ourselves to His Will, or choose to deny it. Given the goodness of God, I prefer to see ourselves to the Infinitely Goood Will of God.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[ialsop]

We already live in a theocracy - the whole is ruled by the Three Divine Persons, whether we like it or not. The question is whether we acknowledge this Truth and conform ourselves to His Will, or choose to deny it. Given the goodness of God, I prefer to see ourselves to the Infinitely Goood Will of God.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Again, GREAT post.

Really, it matters for America what America says, but to reality, it changes nothing. People can say what they want. There is Truth. There is only God’s creation and those that don’t accept it.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I used to lean Libertarian because it sounds good in theory and I really dislike the NSA spying on us like a scorned girlfriend lol. The government can be so overly intrusive and folks like Ron Paul do a masterful job of pointing that out.

But ultimately I think Libertarianism leads to anarchy and we cant have that either, need a happy medium.

I wish all these social issues would be left up to the states. I think the founding fathers had self governing states in mind when they established this country. With the federal government just being more of a safety net.

And I’d love for everybody to be Christians, but I actually like the separation of Church and state. Now I would catch heat from a lot of pastors for talking that way, but the reason being is simple…we can call ourselves Christian now and declare that we are going to be a Christian theocracy…but what happens when 5 years from now that same government wants this country to be a Islamic country? And we have giant speakers installed everywhere and resemble Saudi Arabia with the call to mandatory Islamic prayer blaring through said speakers 5 times per day. No thank you!!!

 

[Cimachol]

So how should a society, especially a multicultural and multi-religious society, decide what is moral or immoral? Should certain varieties of Christianity be the yardstick for making this determination? A Muslim, for example, would consider polygamy to be perfectly moral since it is explicitly allowed in the Qur’an. So whose standards of morality should be used in deciding whether polygamy is moral in an increasingly multicultural and multi-religious society? There are up to 2.75 million Muslims in the US.

Will everyone agree on a given determination of what is moral? No, but that’s no reason to let go of moral standards entirely. We have rational, adult discussions and come to workable agreements. For example, most people don’t want prostitutes parading down their streets. Some people would say they see nothing wrong with prostitution. That doesn’t mean we as a society have to allow it.

 

[Bradski]

An observation??
Well, if that’s true…then millions of people do not observe this.

Exactly right.

And here’s an easy way for clem to test that it is ‘an observation’.

If you could surmise something to be wrong just by observing it, then you need to picture yourself in a world where that thing is accepted as entirely normal and then see if you would consider it to be wrong.

I’d suggest that if you were brought up in a society where marriage was the exception, then you’d think nothing wrong in sex outside of marriage. I’d suggest that if you were brought up in a society where masturbation was actively encouraged, then you wouldn’t feel any guilt in doing it. I’d suggest that if you were brought up in a society where nudity was the norm, then you wouldn’t feel embarrassed in being naked. But if I suggested that you were brought up in a society where rape and murder was common, then I’d also suggest that you’d feel something was seriously wrong.

Now imagine yourself in a society where same sex relationships are entirely natural.

 

[Thorolfr]

Will everyone agree on a given determination of what is moral? No, but that’s no reason to let go of moral standards entirely. We have rational, adult discussions and come to workable agreements. For example, most people don’t want prostitutes parading down their streets. Some people would say they see nothing wrong with prostitution. That doesn’t mean we as a society have to allow it.

But on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, more and more people see nothing wrong or immoral about them. That’s even more the case with younger people, including younger Catholics:

Fully 85% of self-identified Catholics ages 18-29 said in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 13% who said it should be discouraged.

Similarly, despite the church’s continued opposition to same-sex marriage, most U.S. Catholics (57%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally wed, according to aggregated 2014 Pew Research surveys. And again, younger Catholics are particularly likely to express this view. Three-quarters of Catholic adults under 30 support legal same-sex marriage, compared with 53% of Catholics ages 30 and older (including just 38% of those 65 and older).

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/