North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions

[sw85]

I think you are saying that marriage is completely based on reproduction then - however, a woman or man could have a condition in which they cannot conceive. If that is true there are many marriages that are unlawful.

I know you have said “relevant” which means that there are some situations where reproduction does not have to be sole purpose of marriage? What are the other purposes outside of that? Love? Friendship?

I believe the only role gender has within marriage is sex towards reproducing, which would mean that a couple of the opposite gender who cannot have sex and/or reproduce would fall outside of this purpose as well?

I don’t want to stray too far into complicated issues of natural law you’re raising, so instead I will limit my observations to the purely-civil case I’ve outlined elsewhere. Let’s start with an illustrative example.

The state prohibits people from drinking who are under the age of 21. Why does it do this? Because it doesn’t want alcohol getting (legally) into the hands of people who are not sufficiently mature to handle it, e.g., high schoolers.

But of course we know that there are some immature people who are 21 or older, and some people who are under 21 who are perfectly mature and capable of handling alcohol. Why the arbitrary dividing line, then?

Because the arbitrary dividing line is (a) roughly accurate, if imprecise in some rare cases, and (b) because of (a) it is a relatively easy and mostly reliable method of operationalizing “maturity.”

Let us suppose the state scrapped the 21-year-old age limit and instead instituted a “sufficient maturity” requirement. Such a requirement would be maddeningly vague. How would it be assessed and enforced? To what standards would individual vendors’ judgment be held? Might my good-faith judgment that Person X is mature get me sued for selling alcohol to an immature person?

Obviously, such an arrangement would be intolerable. We use age as a proxy for maturity because it enables us to make a bright line in the sand. It’s not perfectly reliable, but no such proxy would be, nor does it need to be.

In a similar way, we use “being of the same species, of the opposite sex, and sufficiently unrelated” as a proxy for “desirably fertile.” Because the only other way to assess it would be invasive, intrusive, and frustratingly vague and inefficient fertility tests. As above, this criterion is both (a) a reasonably accurate gauge of a couple’s fertility, infertility being nonnormative and (b) far less intrusive than the only other option for assessing it.

And why should the state care at all about a couple being “desirably fertile”? Because fertile sexual unions have a tendency to produce children – and because the care and disposition of children is absolutely a matter of public interest, in which the state is heavily invested.

Again, this is entirely different from the natural-law case, which is too subtle to go into here.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe the only role gender has within marriage is sex towards reproducing, which would mean that a couple of the opposite gender who cannot have sex and/or reproduce would fall outside of this purpose as well?

From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
marriageuniqueforareason.org/tag/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

"Crucial here is the fact that to exist as a human person means to be embodied. (When was the last time you met someone without a body?) Echoing Bl. John Paul II’s terminology, we can say that the body “reveals” man and is “an expression of the person” (TOB, 9.4 and 27.3). In other words, encountering a living human body means at the same time encountering a human person. The body is not just a shell or a conduit for one’s “real” self but is intimately and inseparably united with one’s identity, one’s “I”.

Further, to exist as a human person means to exist as a man or as a woman. The human body is fundamentally a gendered reality, not a gender-less (androgynous) one.[1] And because the body is a deeply personal reality and not just a biological fact, being a man or being a woman is not just a matter of anatomical features or “the shape of my skin.” Instead, one’s sexual identity – as a man or as a woman – affects a person at every level of his or her existence (biologically, psychologically, genetically, and so forth).

**An irreducible and dynamic difference **

What does sexual identity have to do with sexual difference? Simply this: when we speak of sexual difference, we mean both the existence of two distinct sexual identities (man or woman) and the built-in mutual relationship between them. In other words, sexual difference has to do with the irreducible and dynamic difference of man to woman and woman to man.

Why “irreducible”? Because sexual difference is primordial, basic, and unique. It is fundamental to human experience and reality. Unlike other differences between people, sexual difference undergirds everything that we are as human persons, male or female. Sexual difference cuts across geographic, ethnic, and other differences, being in fact more basic than these other differences.

Why “dynamic”? Because sexual difference distinguishes in order to unite. In fact, sexual difference is precisely what enables communion between man and woman to exist at all. (More on this soon.)

Put another way, sexual difference is a mutually referential kind of difference – we know woman fully only by knowing man, and know man fully only by knowing woman. The differences between them do not just set them apart but hint at something more, at a call to communion between them. This call to communion inscribed in man and woman is part of what Bl. John Paul II had in mind when he wrote the following:

“The person, by the light of reason and the support of virtue, discovers in the body the anticipatory signs, the expression and the promise of the gift of self, in conformity with the wise plan of the Creator” (VS, no. 48).

Sexual difference, then, far from being merely a biological or anatomical fact, communicates a wealth of truth about the human person! If we have the eyes to see, as Bl. John Paul II urges us to, we’ll see in the human person’s identity as man and woman the “anticipatory signs” of the “gift of self,” or, using the language of the Catechism, we’ll see the call to love, which is the “fundamental and innate vocation of every human being” (CCC, no. 1604).

Sexual difference and marriage

We are now well-poised to understand what sexual difference has to do with marriage: marriage is a unique relationship that has a number of essential characteristics (without which marriage wouldn’t be marriage):"

•Marriage is total (gift of self)
•Marriage is faithful and exclusive (a truthful gift)
•Marriage is forever (the gift of one’s future)
•Marriage is life-giving (the gift of one’s fertility)

Sexual difference matters here: it is the ground (the foundation) of the capacity of husband and wife to exchange a mutual, total gift of their entire selves, a gift precisely at the center of what marriage is. Without sexual difference, this gift would not be possible. Put more specifically: the love between husband and wife involves a free, total, and faithful gift of self that not only expresses love but also opens the spouses to receive the gift of a child. No other human interaction on earth is like this!

Sexual difference, then, is not an optional “add-on” to an already existing entity called “marriage” (much like you might choose to add sprinkles to your ice cream – or not). Instead, sexual difference is at the very heart of what marriage is. It’s what capacitates man and woman to give themselves completely to each other as husband and wife. Sexual difference matters for marriage."

It’s truly breathtaking what many Catholics do not know about their own faith.

 

[sw85]

This whole thing will be repealed in 20 years… Mark my words.

And a Republican senator who voted for the amendment said that as well.

And in 200 years, you and most everyone like you will be dead because your fertility is below replacement level. By contrast, we traditionally-minded Catholics who are having 3, 5, 7, or upwards of 10 kids a family will rule the West and gay “marriage” will vanish down the rat hole as the moral and historical anomaly that it is.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Obama just affirmed his support for gay marriage. The evolution, as it were, is complete.

The show of true colors is complete, you mean. Not talking about race here. When he was campaigning to be President, he said that his definition of marriage was that between a man and a woman. No question, it was a ploy to persuade the conservative voters.

181 more days!
,

 

[Ronald_E]

It was neither. You obviously don’t understand what either of those words mean.Who is judging? Those of us who like the outcome of the vote are siding with the Church. Is the Church wrong?Run away if you like. While you are running, get a dictionary and look up slander.

Peace

Tim

You wrote a lie about my intent to address this thread. Slander is “the utterance of a falsehood that damages another’s reputation”. How does your lie not damage my reputation? Then you end with…
Peace

 

[Ronald_E]

So?

Peace

Tim

Exactly my point.

 

[ASimon]

The show of true colors is complete, you mean. Not talking about race here. When he was campaigning to be President, he said that his definition of marriage was that between a man and a woman. No question, it was a ploy to persuade the conservative voters.

181 more days!
,

There’s always prayer, I suppose, but I doubt Romney has a one of those, either.

 

[matthau21]

I don’t want to stray too far into complicated issues of natural law you’re raising, so instead I will limit my observations to the purely-civil case I’ve outlined elsewhere. Let’s start with an illustrative example.

The state prohibits people from drinking who are under the age of 21. Why does it do this? Because it doesn’t want alcohol getting (legally) into the hands of people who are not sufficiently mature to handle it, e.g., high schoolers.

But of course we know that there are some immature people who are 21 or older, and some people who are under 21 who are perfectly mature and capable of handling alcohol. Why the arbitrary dividing line, then?

Because the arbitrary dividing line is (a) roughly accurate, if imprecise in some rare cases, and (b) because of (a) it is a relatively easy and mostly reliable method of operationalizing “maturity.”

Let us suppose the state scrapped the 21-year-old age limit and instead instituted a “sufficient maturity” requirement. Such a requirement would be maddeningly vague. How would it be assessed and enforced? To what standards would individual vendors’ judgment be held? Might my good-faith judgment that Person X is mature get me sued for selling alcohol to an immature person?

Obviously, such an arrangement would be intolerable. We use age as a proxy for maturity because it enables us to make a bright line in the sand. It’s not perfectly reliable, but no such proxy would be, nor does it need to be.

In a similar way, we use “being of the same species, of the opposite sex, and sufficiently unrelated” as a proxy for “desirably fertile.” Because the only other way to assess it would be invasive, intrusive, and frustratingly vague and inefficient fertility tests. As above, this criterion is both (a) a reasonably accurate gauge of a couple’s fertility, infertility being nonnormative and (b) far less intrusive than the only other option for assessing it.

And why should the state care at all about a couple being “desirably fertile”? Because fertile sexual unions have a tendency to produce children – and because the care and disposition of children is absolutely a matter of public interest, in which the state is heavily invested.

Again, this is entirely different from the natural-law case, which is too subtle to go into here.

Thank you for going deeper into what your thoughts are on the the more “civil” side of this argument.

I understand that there needs to be “lines” drawn in law, like your example of the drinking age, in order for us to make educated decisions on certain matters. Although someone who is under 21 may be mature, the age of 21 is a good indicator of who can handle drinking (whether that is true or not is another matter, but I see your point).

I also understand that you are saying fertility is a hard thing to measure without going into fertility tests which is highly inconvenient for all parties. So they mark a line in the sand that says obviously, two like genders cannot reproduce, so they should not get married.

However, this all makes sense only if the sole purpose of marriage, again, is to reproduce (from a civil perspective).

One could argue that civil marriages benefit the government/society in ways outside of reproduction. These “reasonings” may be more subjective to some, but are worth the discussion.

There is also the point that a civil marriage does not have to take place for a couple to reproduce and care for children. Since this is possible, and does happen, what is the incentive for the state to ban homosexual civil marriages if these individuals would more than likely not reproduce anyways?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!
USCCB:

We are now well-poised to understand what sexual difference has to do with marriage: marriage is a unique relationship that has a number of essential characteristics (without which marriage wouldn’t be marriage):

•Marriage is total (gift of self)
•Marriage is faithful and exclusive (a truthful gift)
•Marriage is forever (the gift of one’s future)
•Marriage is life-giving (the gift of one’s fertility)

Sexual difference matters here: it is the ground (the foundation) of the capacity of husband and wife to exchange a mutual, total gift of their entire selves, a gift precisely at the center of what marriage is. Without sexual difference, this gift would not be possible. Put more specifically: the love between husband and wife involves a free, total, and faithful gift of self that not only expresses love but also opens the spouses to receive the gift of a child. No other human interaction on earth is like this!

I’m curious as to how this reflects on the Holy Family and other Josephite marriages. It seems to suggest that having sex is necessary in order for a marriage to be real, or that real self-giving is impossible without sex. Or it could be saying that the presence of a male and a female in a marriage, even without the sexual act, produces a virtual fecundity or a virtual sexual self-giving in the absence of an actual fecundity or self-giving. But I’m not sure that a virtual good can adequately stand in for an actual good–the good is either real and present, or it isn’t, but in this context, the presence of the goods discussed seems to hinge on the performance of the sexual act. However one looks at it, this statement from the USCCB seems to put us in a real bind with regard to how we are to understand, let alone emulate, the model of the Holy Family.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[sw85]

Thank you for going deeper into what your thoughts are on the the more “civil” side of this argument.

I understand that there needs to be “lines” drawn in law, like your example of the drinking age, in order for us to make educated decisions on certain matters. Although someone who is under 21 may be mature, the age of 21 is a good indicator of who can handle drinking (whether that is true or not is another matter, but I see your point).

I also understand that you are saying fertility is a hard thing to measure without going into fertility tests which is highly inconvenient for all parties. So they mark a line in the sand that says obviously, two like genders cannot reproduce, so they should not get married.

However, this all makes sense only if the sole purpose of marriage, again, is to reproduce (from a civil perspective).

**One could argue that civil marriages benefit the government/society in ways outside of reproduction. These “reasonings” may be more subjective to some, but are worth the discussion.

There is also the point that a civil marriage does not have to take place for a couple to reproduce and care for children. Since this is possible, and does happen, what is the incentive for the state to ban homosexual civil marriages if these individuals would more than likely not reproduce anyways?**

You’re very welcome, although again, bear in mind, that is only one way to approach the issue. It’s not my way. I prefer a natural law approach. And I want civil law to largely mirror the natural law. But that’s a whole other set of arguments. My intention here was simply to demonstrate that there is a very simple reason why even a secular society would enact the definition of “marriage” we have normatively today and had exclusively until about 10 years ago.

To address your bolded questions (first paragraph first), I cannot imagine what rational benefits civil marriage would have besides those relevant to procreation. The common argument is that marriage enables couples to be covered under each others’ life insurance policies, for instance, so that gay couples are being unjustly discriminated against. But this, too, is related to procreation. My wife gets my life insurance because doing so enables us both to discharge our duties as spouses and parents. There is no reason for my brother to get my life insurance because I have no such duty towards him. If the state desires that everyone should be covered under health insurance, it has other means at its disposal to reach that end besides “marriage.” Marriage is not there as a means of giving people free stuff from the state’s largesse.

For the second paragraph, note that the point of marriage is not to be a permission slip for people to have kids. It’s intended to provide a framework of legal duties and rights on which couples can rely in order to discharge their duty to procreate more effectively. If they choose not to avail themselves of that framework, I don’t see that as the state’s problem; after all, welfare exists to help poor people, but no one imagines it’s an argument against welfare that it’s not the only means by which poor people can be helped. Likewise, I don’t see why someone would choose to avail themselves of that framework if they have no intention of having children, but again, I don’t see it as a problem: if I go to school to get an engineering degree and then don’t practice engineering, I haven’t really done anything but wasted my time and money. It doesn’t prove that engineering degrees are useless or should be abolished.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m curious as to how this reflects on the Holy Family and other Josephite marriages.

How absurd and irrelevant. The Roman Church does not ask, nor even suggest, that any family other than the Holy Family itself is supposed to be celibate within marriage. Further, a lack of fecundity as an accident, despite attempts, does not impact all of the other aspects of genuine self-giving uniquely possibly between persons of opposite gender in a covenantal and truly complementary (biologically, psychologically, spiritually, emotionally) love.

Or it could be saying that the presence of a male and a female in a marriage, even without the sexual act, produces a virtual fecundity or a virtual sexual self-giving in the absence of an actual fecundity or self-giving.

“Could be,” and is.

That’s obvious when one reads the Catholic documents. Not a mystery, even an ersatz “mystery” that needs volumes of the same non-existent hypotheticals that have been repeated for a couple of years here.

 

[NonServiam]

That’s false. The First Amendment prohibits formal religious establishment. It doesn’t follow that people can’t vote their consciences, unless those consciences are formed according to the informally-established state religion of utilitarianism.

People are perfectly allowed to vote in according with their consciences, but the law is not allowed to enshrine the doctrines of a specific religion.

If you want to believe that marriage is some sort of mystical institution created by your god and is just for heterosexuals, then by all means believe that and belong to a church that teaches that and only recognizes heterosexual marriage.

But keep your beliefs out of the law that applies to all people in the country, including those who don’t share your beliefs.

Surely you’re not that ignorant of why we oppose gay “marriage” – because we don’t, in fact, see it as just a bunch of contracts all in one, because we don’t see it as a means of making life easier for people (i.e., for giving money to people), and because we don’t accept your radically reductionist definition of “harm.”

Right, those are your doctrinally-motivated beliefs. You’re perfectly free to hold them, but you’re not free to enshrine them in the law that applies to people who don’t share those presuppositions.

 

[NonServiam]

Times are getting tough people. The ability to practice our faith is becoming steadily harder and harder.

Out of curiosity, can you name two or three specific ways that your ability to practice your religion is hindered by homosexuals getting married?

 

[matthau21]

From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
marriageuniqueforareason.org/tag/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

"Crucial here is the fact that to exist as a human person means to be embodied. (When was the last time you met someone without a body?) Echoing Bl. John Paul II’s terminology, we can say that the body “reveals” man and is “an expression of the person” (TOB, 9.4 and 27.3). In other words, encountering a living human body means at the same time encountering a human person. The body is not just a shell or a conduit for one’s “real” self but is intimately and inseparably united with one’s identity, one’s “I”.

Further, to exist as a human person means to exist as a man or as a woman. The human body is fundamentally a gendered reality, not a gender-less (androgynous) one.[1] And because the body is a deeply personal reality and not just a biological fact, being a man or being a woman is not just a matter of anatomical features or “the shape of my skin.” Instead, one’s sexual identity – as a man or as a woman – affects a person at every level of his or her existence (biologically, psychologically, genetically, and so forth).

**An irreducible and dynamic difference **

What does sexual identity have to do with sexual difference? Simply this: when we speak of sexual difference, we mean both the existence of two distinct sexual identities (man or woman) and the built-in mutual relationship between them. In other words, sexual difference has to do with the irreducible and dynamic difference of man to woman and woman to man.

Why “irreducible”? Because sexual difference is primordial, basic, and unique. It is fundamental to human experience and reality. Unlike other differences between people, sexual difference undergirds everything that we are as human persons, male or female. Sexual difference cuts across geographic, ethnic, and other differences, being in fact more basic than these other differences.

Why “dynamic”? Because sexual difference distinguishes in order to unite. In fact, sexual difference is precisely what enables communion between man and woman to exist at all. (More on this soon.)

Put another way, sexual difference is a mutually referential kind of difference – we know woman fully only by knowing man, and know man fully only by knowing woman. The differences between them do not just set them apart but hint at something more, at a call to communion between them. This call to communion inscribed in man and woman is part of what Bl. John Paul II had in mind when he wrote the following:

“The person, by the light of reason and the support of virtue, discovers in the body the anticipatory signs, the expression and the promise of the gift of self, in conformity with the wise plan of the Creator” (VS, no. 48).

Sexual difference, then, far from being merely a biological or anatomical fact, communicates a wealth of truth about the human person! If we have the eyes to see, as Bl. John Paul II urges us to, we’ll see in the human person’s identity as man and woman the “anticipatory signs” of the “gift of self,” or, using the language of the Catechism, we’ll see the call to love, which is the “fundamental and innate vocation of every human being” (CCC, no. 1604).

Sexual difference and marriage

We are now well-poised to understand what sexual difference has to do with marriage: marriage is a unique relationship that has a number of essential characteristics (without which marriage wouldn’t be marriage):"

•Marriage is total (gift of self)
•Marriage is faithful and exclusive (a truthful gift)
•Marriage is forever (the gift of one’s future)
•Marriage is life-giving (the gift of one’s fertility)

Sexual difference matters here: it is the ground (the foundation) of the capacity of husband and wife to exchange a mutual, total gift of their entire selves, a gift precisely at the center of what marriage is. Without sexual difference, this gift would not be possible. Put more specifically: the love between husband and wife involves a free, total, and faithful gift of self that not only expresses love but also opens the spouses to receive the gift of a child. No other human interaction on earth is like this!

Sexual difference, then, is not an optional “add-on” to an already existing entity called “marriage” (much like you might choose to add sprinkles to your ice cream – or not). Instead, sexual difference is at the very heart of what marriage is. It’s what capacitates man and woman to give themselves completely to each other as husband and wife. Sexual difference matters for marriage."

It’s truly breathtaking what many Catholics do not know about their own faith.

Thanks for the passage on marriage. Great points in there.

I guess my only confusion is this part:

We are now well-poised to understand what sexual difference has to do with marriage: marriage is a unique relationship that has a number of essential characteristics (without which marriage wouldn’t be marriage):"

•Marriage is total (gift of self)
•Marriage is faithful and exclusive (a truthful gift)
•Marriage is forever (the gift of one’s future)
•Marriage is life-giving (the gift of one’s fertility)

I agree with all of this, except for maybe the last one. Although fertility can be a part of marriage, some people do not have fertility to give and cannot have children. Also, what if you are married and choose to be celibate (both parties)?

 

[Slaney]

God made Adam & Eve, NOT Adam & Steve… thanks be to God, but I’m sure they will keep hammering on the door for years to come for change…

It’s immoral and against the law of God, so as Catholics & Christian it has to be good news.
I’m disappointed with Catholics here that express an opinion that is not in keeping with the law of God…were either with Jesus or against Him…

 

[sw85]

People are perfectly allowed to vote in according with their consciences, but the law is not allowed to enshrine the doctrines of a specific religion.

Again, this is false. The Constitution forbids the state from saying “The Catholic Church shall hereafter be understood to be the Church of the United States and to represent in toto the fullness of divine truth.” It doesn’t forbid it from saying “marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Even if it did (and, again, it doesn’t), that would simply be an argument to change the Constitution. As I’m a monarchist and in favor of scrapping the Constitution entirely, it hardly interests me either way. Your argument’s irrelevant to me even if it were true. It just isn’t, is all.

Right, those are your doctrinally-motivated beliefs. You’re perfectly free to hold them, but you’re not free to enshrine them in the law that applies to people who don’t share those presuppositions.

And, again, this is false. I am free to do just that, provided I go through the ordinary means of doing so. Certainly nothing in the Constitution prevents or has ever prevented me from doing so. There is an implicit requirement that any such law satisfy the basic demands of reason, but as I demonstrated above, that can be done perfectly in the case of gay “marriage”: it serves no public interest whatsoever, therefore, there is no reason to recognize gay unions as “marriages.”

 

[Midwest88]

Anyone else slightly amused when people equate banning SSM to racism and say “Years from now we’ll be hanging our head in shame.” I can’t take this seriously when people do this. It’s absurd.

 

[sw85]

Anyone else slightly amused when people equate banning SSM to racism and say “Years from now we’ll be hanging our head in shame.” I can’t take this seriously when people do this. It’s absurd.

Especially when you consider the fact that the people saying that aren’t having kids and probably never will!

 

[livingwordunity]

Obama has already shown that if he is reelected he will work to take away the right of states to ban so-called “gay marriage”.

 

[NonServiam]

Again, this is false. The Constitution forbids the state from saying “The Catholic Church shall hereafter be understood to be the Church of the United States and to represent in toto the fullness of divine truth.” It doesn’t forbid it from saying “marriage is between a man and a woman.”

In order to see what’s wrong with your argument, plug in a belief from some other religion. For example, Hindus hold cows to be sacred. The Constitution would not allow a law to be passed that banned people from eating cows on the ground that cows are sacred.

If you want to believe that cows are sacred and that it’s wrong for people to eat them, then knock yourself out. You just don’t get to enshrine it in the law of the land.

As I’m a monarchist and in favor of scrapping the Constitution entirely, it hardly interests me either way.

It’s hard to know exactly how to respond to this without pointing at you and laughing.