North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Well, duh, but that doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not marriage should only be allowed for a male/female couple.

I think that it is evident that it tells, like wings for flying!

I believe they exist.

Nothing except the fact that nobody in the entire country wants that, except for maybe literally one or two wackadoos.

The question is not if it will but that it can!

Some hints.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Gravity is a word for a force of nature, Marriage is a word for a social construct.

Spot the difference between the two, and then explain why your ham-fisted attempt at an analogy fails (10 points).

Reproduction in animals is an animal construct?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I didn’t say it was “a word of no importance.” I said – and I thought I was pretty clear – that “marriage” is a word that denotes a social construct.

Social constructs, unlike natural forces, can change over time – hence my pointing out what was wrong with your analogy.

“genocide” can change with time?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

What about gay poliandry, why not?
And lesbian poligamy, why not?
What about legalizing any combination? 2+5; 1+4; 3+2; 8+7; 1+2 and so on…

 

[CopticChristian]

Gravity is a word for a force of nature, Marriage is a word for a social construct.

Spot the difference between the two, and then explain why your ham-fisted attempt at an analogy fails (10 points).

Non,

Marriage for you is a social construct.

Marriage for me is a covenant, a sacred family bond.

What you think and believe as it regards marriage applies to your paradigm and not others. You cannot impose or expect your paradigm to mean to me what it means to you. For you it is a construct that can change. For me it is as relevant as gravity and not changeable. There must be agreement to disagree.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

 

[NonServiam]

Marriage for you is a social construct.

Marriage for me is a covenant, a sacred family bond.

That’s precisely my point: you hold a dogmatic belief about marriage that is derived from a specific religious tradition. You’re more than welcome to hold that belief and belong to an organization that upholds that belief and that only marries and recognizes marriage in that context.

But you are also part of a society with a secular government, a society filled with people who don’t hold your dogmatic, religious-based position.

While you’re perfectly allowed to hold your position – and, by all means, marry someone of the opposite sex in the context of a “sacred family bond” – you’re not allowed to enshrine your dogmatic belief in law and force it on others.

You cannot impose or expect your paradigm to mean to me what it means to you.

As I said above, I’m not trying to impose any paradigm on you. You are free to hold your belief and to marry in accordance with it.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

can you cite an example of a ruling which appears to be judicial fiat? all of the decisions which i have reviewed have been carefully crafted and coherent, far from being arbitrary. your point is well made that civil rights are rarely obtained through popular vote. this has always been so in the US.

On the California experience, as Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson aptly summarized the case: “The Court used a bootstrap argument that since there was a prior right to samesex marriage (based on a California Supreme Court decision which gave rise to Prop. 8 ) — the taking away of that right without justification violated the 14th Amendment.”

The Ninth Circuit opinion: “It suffices to conclude that the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.” This is a troublesome passage. The Ninth Circuit equates a ruling by the California Supreme Court with “the State and society giv[ing] to committed relationships” the designation of marriage. But the judiciary is not the representative of the State and Society. To turn a Supreme Court into the representatives of “Society” itself makes the elementary mistake of confounding the roles of the judiciary with the elected representatives of society in the legislature and popularly voted initiatives. It is the latter which most obviously is the true representative of the state of society and sentiments of State government. The Supreme Court of California ruling allowing gays to wed overturned what had before then been Proposition 22 which by an overwhelming popular vote made it statutory law that marriage was to be between a man and woman. Only a few months after this California Supreme Court ruling in 2008, the people once again affirmed that marriage was between a man and woman and by the popularly voted upon amendment to the California Constitution known as Proposition 8 overturned their Supreme Court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit now therefore essentially rules that judicial fiat is truly supreme, and for the people to legitimately and legally oveturn a right newly invented by the judiciary is nothing short of “animus” that cannot stand. The judicial arrogance of the Ninth Circuit is boundless, exceeding even the California Supreme Court which later itself upheld Proposition 8 as a legitimate and legal amendment to California’s Constitution. To reason that once the judiciary invents a right out of thin air the people have no remedy and cannot oveturn it without the judiciary declaring the action void is a subversion of our system of laws.

As to your comment on civil rights. it is another grab by pro-gays for an inapplicable category to further their agenda. Gay ‘marriage’ is not a civil right and the arguments have been much covered as well in this forum. To streamline discussion to the OP, please do the favor of helping yourself to reading them in the big volume of posts and threads on the subject via the site search function. Or, on the web, if you so please.

… and yet, nobody has pointed to any interest which the government has in this matter. So, how can the discrimination not be considered “unjust”.

it is nearly a truism that laws never seem to change fast enough for those who feel discriminated against, and that they also change too rapidly for those who resist social progress. we have seen this repeatedly.

The interest of the government is to serve its citizens, not for those in it to have separate or special interests from the citizenry, to ensure that laws promote the common good. The application of some form of discrimination in civil laws (and criminal, as well) is in fact necessary.

The poster to whom I replied has been a long time forum member who repeats his disagreements with the position of faithful Catholics members on gay ‘marriage.’ And he gets the same answers which he apparently just sets aside. He is familiar with the definition of justice and injustice as we use it.

Those insisting for gay ‘marriage’ to be enshrined in law everywhere have not made convincing arguments that it serves a public and common social interest. Attainment of personal happiness? No question.

I take exception to the inference you make that those who do not approve of gay ‘marriage’ resist social progress. It would seem that you, like him, use a different measure of social progress. There is another ongoing thread on the social consequence of gay ‘marriage’ among other active threads on top of those on inactive or archived status. I entreat you to read or peruse a sampling of arguments, both religious and secular, against gay ‘marriage.’
,

 

[bmaj]

To our atheist friends here: I’m sure you’ve already heard this, but in case you haven’t, I’d like to point a few things out. Most Catholics don’t oppose gay marriage because they find gays “icky.” It’s because we understand marriage as an institution directed towards producing families. In that respect, we do not view marriage, sacramental or not, as a right. The breakdown of the nuclear family in modern times is an obvious reality, and in a society that has already assumed a selfish position on marriage (i.e. it’s all about feelings), gay marriage only further undermines the historical and true purpose of marriage: to create stable, loving environments in which to produce and raise children.
The phenomenon of marriage as being purely about “being in love” (while that is an important part, but still only a part) is a wholly modern one and the results speak for themselves. So, it might seem to be simply “mean” or “homophobic” to you, but for many, if not most, of us, that’s just not the case.

Excellent points! It’s so hard to convince many people (even some Catholics!) that we do not wish to shun anyone at all - and that, of course, would include anyone who considers himself or herself a homosexual. Jesus has clearly taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and our neighbor is anyone and everyone. However, we firmly believe based on our Catholic Faith as well as both Old and New Testament teachings that marriage is solely between one man and one woman - not a woman and a woman, a man and a man, a dog and a man, a cat and a woman, three women and two men…etc. Those last examples may sound absurd right now, but sadly they may not sound so strange in the future if our society continues to go down the path it’s headed.

I humbly and sincerely pray that the light of the Holy Spirit will help those who do not understand why we believe the way we do to have their eyes opened to God’s teachings.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonServiam,

You may have thrown out more then the ‘baby’ with this ‘bath water’ example… So, even though it is annoying - just step back a pace and look what you have said within a slightly different context.

“While you’re perfectly allowed to hold your position – and, by all means, marry someone of the opposite sex in the context of a “sacred family bond” – you’re not allowed to enshrine your dogmatic belief in law and force it on others.”

If you look back (try Exodus 20 for starters…) you will find that some ‘dogmatic beliefs’ such as the prohibition against: murder, theft, adultry and lying were already well established before the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. Moving forward to 1778, we find that Gen George Washington court marshaled an officer for attempted sodomy (cnsnews.com/news/article/george-washington-drummed-out-soldier-infamous-crime-attempted-sodomy) While sodomy is specifically condemned in several places in the Bible, it is not specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

Wishing something is not so will never stand the test of either logic or history. Instead of the standard ‘foam-for-argument’,NS - try a logical response to these historical facts. Governments all over the world have found genuine value in the Laws of God. Ignore them at your peril.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

That’s precisely my point: you hold a dogmatic belief about marriage that is derived from a specific religious tradition. You’re more than welcome to hold that belief and belong to an organization that upholds that belief and that only marries and recognizes marriage in that context.

But you are also part of a society with a secular government, a society filled with people who don’t hold your dogmatic, religious-based position.

While you’re perfectly allowed to hold your position – and, by all means, marry someone of the opposite sex in the context of a “sacred family bond” – you’re not allowed to enshrine your dogmatic belief in law and force it on others.

As I said above, I’m not trying to impose any paradigm on you. You are free to hold your belief and to marry in accordance with it.

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s precisely my point: you hold a dogmatic belief about marriage that is derived from a specific religious tradition. You’re more than welcome to hold that belief and belong to an organization that upholds that belief and that only marries and recognizes marriage in that context.

But you are also part of a society with a secular government, a society filled with people who don’t hold your dogmatic, religious-based position.

While you’re perfectly allowed to hold your position – and, by all means, marry someone of the opposite sex in the context of a “sacred family bond” – you’re not allowed to enshrine your dogmatic belief in law and force it on others.

As I said above, I’m not trying to impose any paradigm on you. You are free to hold your belief and to marry in accordance with it.

Non,

You were kind enough to tell me about what I believe and why I believe it. Let me ask you what you believe.

Do you believe that you were created or the big bang absent creation?

Do you believe that there is a God or no God?

Do you believe that life has a purpose or no purpose?

Lets start there.

 

[NonServiam]

If you look back (try Exodus 20 for starters…) you will find that some ‘dogmatic beliefs’ such as the prohibition against: murder, theft, adultry and lying were already well established before the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence.

Right. Acts that cause great harm to a society – such as, for example, allowing citizen to indiscriminately murder – are generally prohibited by all societies you can find stretching back through history. Not just Judeo-Christian societies: almost all societies prohibit these actions because the actions are considered harmful (not because of a religiously-specific dogmatic belief).

Of course, adultery and lying aren’t illegal in the United States because – again – we have a secular government that does not legislate a particular religious dogma, and we value allowing individuals to have the freedom to engage in such actions, which we have deemed are not nearly as damaging to society as permitting individuals to murder.

 

[NonServiam]

You were kind enough to tell me about what I believe and why I believe it. Let me ask you what you believe.

What you believe is relevant to this conversation because you seem to want to impose some of your dogmatic beliefs on others.

I don’t want to impose any of my beliefs on you. As I said, believe what you want about marriage and feel free to practice it. See what I care. Just leave the rest of us in peace as well.

 

[NonServiam]

Do you believe that you were created or the big bang absent creation?

I was “created” by my parents. They were “created” by theirs. If you trace back life far enough, the current thinking – based on evidence – is that all life had a common origin from an event called abiogenesis. Professionals who study the subject are still working on figuring it out, so that’s really all I can say I know on the subject.

Do you believe that there is a God or no God?

I don’t have a belief in any god because I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence for the existence of any of them. I don’t dogmatically assert that no gods exist, but I am not convinced that any do.

Do you believe that life has a purpose or no purpose?

“Purpose” is necessarily individual. My life has a “purpose” to me – a personal one that I give it – but I think it’s an abuse of language to suggest that “purpose” can even mean anything apart from the perspective of an individual.

And again, I don’t want you to share any of my thinking, nor do I care – to get back to the subject of the thread – if you think of marriage in the same way that I do.

You are free to believe and practice whatever you like with regards to marriage, and I’d ask you to extend the same courtesy to others.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonServiam,

Not quite.

And, this time you need to stay focused…

1.) The fact that other societies have prohibitions aganst certain actions does not deny that they appear in a religious text - and were actually adopted from the religious text by our God-fearing, Christian Founding Fathers. Go back to 1620 with the very first document that our Country traces it roots to: The Mayflower Compact en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact None of the 101 people on the Mayflower were atheist or agnostic when they singed that document. And each succeeding document clearly spells our a belief in God, His Divine Providence and our obligation to respect the laws He has given us.

2.) Please notice, I did not say illegal when it came to adultery - only that it is prohibited. This probhition lies in the fact that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and enforced with a contract. Adulters is prohibitied (’…forsaking all others…’ or words to that effect). Ah, and while lying is prohibited, as I siad previously…it is actually another item. When we call upon God or a Higher Authority to witenss what we say is the truth - and we lie - that is called purjury and a felony in the criminal code. Getting others to lie under oath (suborning purjury) is also a felony.

Reflecting back on Item #1 - I found myself wondering just how these other societies all over the world, came up with essentially the same types of prohibitions against: murder, theft, etc. Coinsidence probably would not have had much statistical probability of accuracy here (e.g., the wheel was not always present in ancient cultures) - but maybe you have another answer? My suggestion would be to look to the Natural Law for the answer. In fact, you really do not have to look any further then this link:catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=827

My suggestion would be: Don’t be dismissive when confronted with the historically and factually obvious - when it does not point out the flaws in your argument.

God bless

Right. Acts that cause great harm to a society – such as, for example, allowing citizen to indiscriminately murder – are generally prohibited by all societies you can find stretching back through history. Not just Judeo-Christian societies: almost all societies prohibit these actions because the actions are considered harmful (not because of a religiously-specific dogmatic belief).

Of course, adultery and lying aren’t illegal in the United States because – again – we have a secular government that does not legislate a particular religious dogma, and we value allowing individuals to have the freedom to engage in such actions, which we have deemed are not nearly as damaging to society as permitting individuals to murder.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonServiam,

Dismissing CC’s questions because you find them a challenge is not conducive to effective dialogue. Why not go back and answer the questions?

Personally, I think you are still chewing on the same worn-out mantra: ‘no one will impose their dogmatic ideas on me!’ Unfortunately, unless you find a totally isolate island with no one else living there - this is just what you find in every society throughout the world. Someone, somewhere will impose dogmatic laws on you - and it you doubt it, go on and break one - and you will find yourself in jail!!

You want to reject that we have any laws from God - and those who obey such laws are going to have no such power over you. Well, buddy, I think you will find that this is as close to delusional thinking as you can get…without crossing the line. Dismissing the laws against murder, for example, because they come from God but can be upheld because yo see them as coming from the state is to show your prejudice. As I previously stated, our Country was founded by Christians - and they say so in their written and signed documents.

This bit about leave me alone to do my own thing - is great if you are living on that isolated island. But, you are not - you are living in a society that has rules. Some judges have single-handed tried to dismantel what they do not like, as opposed to upholding the law - but, this does not change reality. Destroy the core of society - the family - that begins with one man and one woman to reproduce - and you destroy society. And, for those who do not like it - well… there is no substitute for society if we are to continue. Believe it or not, not only is there just is no future in sodomy, it causes many serious health problems.

God bless

What you believe is relevant to this conversation because you seem to want to impose some of your dogmatic beliefs on others.

I don’t want to impose any of my beliefs on you. As I said, believe what you want about marriage and feel free to practice it. See what I care. Just leave the rest of us in peace as well.

 

[CopticChristian]

I was “created” by my parents. They were “created” by theirs. If you trace back life far enough, the current thinking – based on evidence – is that all life had a common origin from an event called abiogenesis. Professionals who study the subject are still working on figuring it out, so that’s really all I can say I know on the subject.

I don’t have a belief in any god because I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence for the existence of any of them. I don’t dogmatically assert that no gods exist, but I am not convinced that any do.

“Purpose” is necessarily individual. My life has a “purpose” to me – a personal one that I give it – but I think it’s an abuse of language to suggest that “purpose” can even mean anything apart from the perspective of an individual.

And again, I don’t want you to share any of my thinking, nor do I care – to get back to the subject of the thread – if you think of marriage in the same way that I do.

You are free to believe and practice whatever you like with regards to marriage, and I’d ask you to extend the same courtesy to others.

So,

You believe that there was a first man and a first woman. You do not believe in God due to lack of evidence. You believe that your life has purpose for you and that would include a belief that each individual has purpose for them.

This is CAF and you came here and posted an opinion.

Do you agree that information from the past is added to the present so that information of today is built on what we know from the past? In other words we have computers because of building on past technology. We have Astronauts because of technology of aerodynamics and flight.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CopticChristian,

I think there are two basic ideas that must be kept in place:

#1 - Since there will NEVER be enough evidence that God exists (always room for one more objection!) there is no reason for having logical continuity. He was created by his parents, and they were created by their parents …and somehow this process just got started on its own.

#2 - Since #1 will always be maintained, any evidence to the contrary must be referenced back to #1. Sorry, no hard feelings … but, just think of it - if God’s existence was suddenly proven, then there is no further argument and behavior will now have to conform to this new belief. It is soooooo much simpler to change beliefs rather then change behaviors!

What we have all read is the argument that, "I want to do what I want to do and no one can tell me different. Anyone trying to say something no in accordance with my own apparently all-knowing beliefs will be dismissed and their arguments either ignored, or disparaged. This is the very essence of the reason why the Devil refused to serve God.

Wanting logical argumentation at this point is letting wishful thinking triumph over experience.

God bless

So,

You believe that there was a first man and a first woman. You do not believe in God due to lack of evidence. You believe that your life has purpose for you and that would include a belief that each individual has purpose for them.

This is CAF and you came here and posted an opinion.

Do you agree that information from the past is added to the present so that information of today is built on what we know from the past? In other words we have computers because of building on past technology. We have Astronauts because of technology of aerodynamics and flight.

 

[NonServiam]

The fact that other societies have prohibitions aganst certain actions does not deny that they appear in a religious text

Obviously not. But the fact that a rule found in practically all societies is also found in the text of one particular religion (and texts of many, many other religions as well, I might add) doesn’t mean that the rule ultimately derives from that text or from a being that that text claims exists.

were actually adopted from the religious text by our God-fearing, Christian Founding Fathers.

Leaving aside the fact that the founding fathers – i.e. the guys who wrote the Constitution and set up the government – were largely Deists who believed in a non-interventionist god, these founding fathers wrote a document that clearly says that there will be no national religion. As the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly says – ratified by the Congress and all – the US government is in no way based on the Christian religion…or any other religion. No one can sensibly dispute that fact.

I found myself wondering just how these other societies all over the world, came up with essentially the same types of prohibitions against: murder, theft, etc. …] maybe you have another answer?

I would suggest that by definition, people who desire an orderly, safe society must desire not killing and stealing, which are foundational to the concept of “orderly, safe society.”

 

[NonServiam]

Do you agree that information from the past is added to the present so that information of today is built on what we know from the past? In other words we have computers because of building on past technology. We have Astronauts because of technology of aerodynamics and flight.

What in the world does this have to do with anything?

Stop asking rhetorical questions, for which the answer is obviously “yes,” and make a point already.