Question about Gay Marriage

[randomguy0187]

So back on topic to Random guy’s OP. What you are seeing here is what happens when people lack the authority to make a declaration yet do so anyway.

The word “authority” literally means: author’s rights. In asking “what is a right?” The first question that must be asked is who or what has the authority to declare a “right?”

If the Constitution is framed on the idea that the governing body is a self entity then it can declare rights willy-nilly. If instead the Constitution is framed on the idea that there is a Creator then the definition of those rights must come from that authority. One of the reasons communism is embraced is because it defines a “collective entity.” Meaning there are no actual objective rights. In a collective society the rights one has are granted by the group. Dr. Peter Kreeft, a Catholic theologian, would call it, “A mutual non-aggression pact.” “I won’t try to kill you if you don’t try to kill me.”

This shows why both the far right and the far left have it wrong. The far left says, “There is no real authority except what we decide as a group.” The far right says, “There is authority and it can be found in a single earthly leader.” To the right we have fascism, to the left communism. The extremes bend around and eventually touch each other.

Catholic teaching is neither. Catholic teaching is that their is NO earthly authority. Human leaders are merely stewards standing in stead. Again, Dr Kreeft says, “We are merely the Lord’s mail carriers. We cannot edit God’s mail.”

So yes, I have remained a proud American because we are in fact given three inalienable rights by our Creator: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (in that order.) But those rights are defined by our Creator. Anything else is a privilege of residing in a civilized society.

Yes, thank you. This is more in the area of what I wanted to discuss

Now, in this context, is marriage a “right”? I know that in one of your later posts, you said that marriage is not a “right.” Could you explain more on that? My instincts agree with you, but I’m having trouble connecting the dots in my reasoning

 

[Shlomey]

I find it interesting that I am asked why I would support gay marriage that forces itself upon others.

1. the religious are the one tryign to block gay marriage between people of the same sex
2. if there is gay marriage - as in other countries - noone is going to force you to have a gay marriage, no?
3. if people choose damnation, that is their God-given right and not ours to override

I still have to see any good counter-argument for the controlling of other people…

 

[Eucharisted]

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

INTRODUCTION

1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.

I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE
AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS

1. The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

Read the rest of the document here

 

[Shlomey]

you lack an understanding of Catholic teaching. but thats not even the point

you are arguing in favor of a practice that most people find immoral and nasty.

like any other situation, we have a right to make law in regards to morality, thats basic political theory.

we choose by vote not to accept that behavior as the norm in our community.

until its absolutely proven that one is born homosexual, it is not a right.

if you have any cogent arguments, with evidence or a logical arguments, to refute my assertions, then please respond with them.

Do you have the right to clothing and medical assistance?

Speaking of logic, you lack it.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=Shlomey;4427996]Do you have the right to clothing and medical assistance?

I don’t know about the person you’re questioning, but I have the right to **earn **the money to purchase clothing & medical assistance. That is…IF I can find a business, job, etc. from which I can earn the money. Anything else is not a “right”, it’s charity. There are times in many lives where people need a “hand-up”…but no one has a **right **to a “hand-out”.

I don’t have the right to marry a person of the same sex, an animal or a child. Rights are bestowed upon us (bestowed = given as a gift), by God or the country in which we live. Our bill of rights guarantees me freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition, and freedom of the press. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.It guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy.Those are my “rights” as defined by the nation in which I choose to live.

My “right” granted to me by the Creator is the right of free will, basically the right to pursue goodness or evil. I have a “right” to salvation given to me by Jesue Christ & His ultimate Sacrifice. I may choose to invoke that right…or…I may choose to live apart from Him & lose the right of Salvation.

You are correct in your assertion that you have the “right” to sin. I, on the other hand, have the right to condemn your sin…not YOU…but your sin. I have the right to vote & speak out against sexual perversion defined as a “civil union” or a “marriage”.

---

 

[mackbrislawn]

So back on topic to Random guy’s OP. What you are seeing here is what happens when people lack the authority to make a declaration yet do so anyway.

The word “authority” literally means: author’s rights. In asking “what is a right?” The first question that must be asked is who or what has the authority to declare a “right?”

If the Constitution is framed on the idea that the governing body is a self entity then it can declare rights willy-nilly. If instead the Constitution is framed on the idea that there is a Creator then the definition of those rights must come from that authority. One of the reasons communism is embraced is because it defines a “collective entity.” Meaning there are no actual objective rights. In a collective society the rights one has are granted by the group. Dr. Peter Kreeft, a Catholic theologian, would call it, “A mutual non-aggression pact.” “I won’t try to kill you if you don’t try to kill me.”

This shows why both the far right and the far left have it wrong. The far left says, “There is no real authority except what we decide as a group.” The far right says, “There is authority and it can be found in a single earthly leader.” To the right we have fascism, to the left communism. The extremes bend around and eventually touch each other.

Catholic teaching is neither. Catholic teaching is that their is NO earthly authority. Human leaders are merely stewards standing in stead. Again, Dr Kreeft says, “We are merely the Lord’s mail carriers. We cannot edit God’s mail.”

So yes, I have remained a proud American because we are in fact given three inalienable rights by our Creator: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (in that order.) But those rights are defined by our Creator. Anything else is a privilege of residing in a civilized society.

Little Deb is so right. Because governments cannot give rights; governments can only take away rights.

Only the Creator can give rights.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I still have to see any good counter-argument for the controlling of other people…

…uh, what is “controlling other people”?

Laws against sodomy would be “controlling other people,” but I think most of those type laws are no more. Otherwise, I don’t see how “controlling” is happening.

 

[Dale_M]

Little Deb is so right. Because governments cannot give rights; governments can only take away rights.

That’s not quite true. We need to make a distinction between human rights, which are inherent in the dignity of being human, and civil rights, which are granted by a government for the purpose of regulating society.

 

[LittleDeb]

That’s not quite true. We need to make a distinction between human rights, which are inherent in the dignity of being human, and civil rights, which are granted by a government for the purpose of regulating society.

And I would agree with you that this distinction is important. Which would still mean that mackbrislawn’s illustration is correct, that marriage is not a *civil *right.

Civil rights flow from a human right. Voting is a good example. It is a civil right which flows from the human right of liberty. Obviously, since I don’t believe that marriage, anyone’s marriage, is a civil *or *human right, I have to do my best to see the opposing point of view. Your distinction is an important addition to the discussion. It will help us get more fully to the heart of the matter. If it is a human right and we are debating from a civil point of view then we accomplish little. Which type of right is marriage then? Is marriage a human right?

If it is a human right, then to whom do I complain if I were unable to find someone to marry? (I’m married BTW so that would be personally hypothetical.) Could the Church force someone to be my spouse?

Because I know “that the mean old Catholic Church” forces women who carry life, to carry it to term. Since Church teaching is that the *right *to life is the most fundamental human right, we can and must “force” a woman to carry to term. (Of course with as much compassion and support for her temporary loss of liberty.) We must force her to be inconvenienced for 9 short months to allow for that fundamental human right, life.

So if marriage is a human right where does it fall on the spectrum of the rest of human rights? Does it take precedence over liberty? Can someone be forced into a marriage based on the grounds that marriage is a human right? Can someone lose their liberty permanently merely because someone else declares that it is their human right to be married?

Or instead could marriage be an actual thing? (The Church calls those Sacraments, but I have no secular word for it.) Could marriage instead be something completely non-rewritable? Could marriage instead be THE actual way for life to begin? Could marriage be an actual joining, not just a “government sanctioned fornication?” Could marriage be the very garden from which human life is created?

 

[mackbrislawn]

That’s not quite true. We need to make a distinction between human rights, which are inherent in the dignity of being human, and civil rights, which are granted by a government for the purpose of regulating society.

No…not quite either. The Bill of Rights acknowledge the rights given to men by their Creator, and because they are given by the Creator, these are rights that the government cannot take away by law.

But in regard to civil rights, notice that the government isn’t really granting rights, government is taking away rights. Government is taking away the right of a landlord to determine who he wants to rent to, taking away the right of a store owner to determine who he allows to, etc. Realize that in actual implementation “civil rights” legislations are prohibitions, carrying penalties for actions the government does not like.

It’s true, maybe these are rights people should not have. Which means the real question is perhaps not which rights the people should have, but what rights the people should NOT have.

This is what I mean that the government cannot give rights, but can only take them away. The Creator gives rights. The government can only give privileges.

 

[LittleDeb]

No…not quite either. The Bill of Rights acknowledge the rights given to men by their Creator, and because they are given by the Creator, these are rights that the government cannot take away by law.

But in regard to civil rights, notice that the government isn’t really granting rights, government is taking away rights. Government is taking away the right of a landlord to determine who he wants to rent to, taking away the right of a store owner to determine who he allows to, etc. Realize that in actual implementation “civil rights” legislations are prohibitions, carrying penalties for actions the government does not like.

It’s true, maybe these are rights people should not have. Which means the real question is perhaps not which rights the people should have, but what rights the people should NOT have.

This is what I mean that the government cannot give rights, but can only take them away. The Creator gives rights. The government can only give privileges.

Thanks for this clarification! I too, was operating under the idea of civil rights. I agree they are civil privileges.

That helps me wrap my mind around governments who wrongly take away human rights. They do so to grant a privilege to another.

 

[mackbrislawn]

And I would agree with you that this distinction is important. Which would still mean that mackbrislawn’s illustration is correct, that marriage is not a *civil *right.

Civil rights flow from a human right. Voting is a good example. It is a civil right which flows from the human right of liberty. Obviously, since I don’t believe that marriage, anyone’s marriage, is a civil *or *human right, I have to do my best to see the opposing point of view. Your distinction is an important addition to the discussion. It will help us get more fully to the heart of the matter. If it is a human right and we are debating from a civil point of view then we accomplish little. Which type of right is marriage then? Is marriage a human right?

If it is a human right, then to whom do I complain if I were unable to find someone to marry? (I’m married BTW so that would be personally hypothetical.) Could the Church force someone to be my spouse?

Because I know “that the mean old Catholic Church” forces women who carry life, to carry it to term. Since Church teaching is that the *right *to life is the most fundamental human right, we can and must “force” a woman to carry to term. (Of course with as much compassion and support for her temporary loss of liberty.) We must force her to be inconvenienced for 9 short months to allow for that fundamental human right, life.

So if marriage is a human right where does it fall on the spectrum of the rest of human rights? Does it take precedence over liberty? Can someone be forced into a marriage based on the grounds that marriage is a human right? Can someone lose their liberty permanently merely because someone else declares that it is their human right to be married?

Or instead could marriage be an actual thing? (The Church calls those Sacraments, but I have no secular word for it.) Could marriage instead be something completely non-rewritable? Could marriage instead be THE actual way for life to begin? Could marriage be an actual joining, not just a “government sanctioned fornication?” Could marriage be the very garden from which human life is created?

LittleDeb asks some important questions that take us to the point of the matter.

For example, let us suppose that marriage IS a human right. What does that mean? Does that mean that the state, or the church, can be forced to marry any couple? In that case, aren’t we taking away the right of the state or church to decide whom they marry? Since the state, and the church, are the source of marriage to begin with, aren’t they are the ones that decide who they marry? Who is qualified for marriage?

If marriage is a human right, does that mean that the state and the church are obligated to perform a marriage? Obviously not, hence marriage is not a human right, but a privilege that is granted via a license.

Should that the prospective couple be members of the opposite sex be removed as a qualification for the privilege of marriage? That is the proper way to pose the question. Maybe this condition should be removed, maybe it should not. But it is important to clear away all the confusion about rights that muddies the real issue.

Incidentally, as it stands right now, gays DO have the privilege of marriage–they just cannot marry a member of the same sex. And heterosexuals of the same sex cannot marry each other either, so gays cannot say they are being picked on.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you have the right to clothing and medical assistance?

Speaking of logic, you lack it.

ok, if you have an argument , make it.i would be happy discuss why i lack logic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I find it interesting that I am asked why I would support gay marriage that forces itself upon others.

1. the religious are the one tryign to block gay marriage between people of the same sex
2. if there is gay marriage - as in other countries - noone is going to force you to have a gay marriage, no?
3. if people choose damnation, that is their God-given right and not ours to override

I still have to see any good counter-argument for the controlling of other people…

here,

in a democracy the rule allow us too set reasonable morals, for instance

1. you cant have more than 1 wife at a time.
2. you cant marry under a certain age
3. statutory rape laws

most of these moral laws are meant to protect the innocent from sexually predatory people

as such we can vote to limit marriage to a man and woman, just as we limit marriage between adults and minors

thats how representative democracy works.

we don’t want our children exposed to that lifestyle as equal to the G-d given sacrament of marriage.

after all, no one hopes that their children grow up to be homosexuals,

further it is an offense to G-d as stated in scripture we need no other reason

 

[Dale_M]

No…not quite either. The Bill of Rights acknowledge the rights given to men by their Creator, and because they are given by the Creator, these are rights that the government cannot take away by law.

I don’t think it was the Bill of Rights, perhaps you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence?
Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

It doesn’t have force of law and was written many years before the Constitution was written and ratified.

But in regard to civil rights, notice that the government isn’t really granting rights, government is taking away rights. Government is taking away the right of a landlord to determine who he wants to rent to, taking away the right of a store owner to determine who he allows to, etc

Government grants civil rights, such as free or regulated commerce, and can restrict those same rights. The right of private property is a civil right, granted by government. Otherwise, possession would depend upon strength, which what we would have under anarchy - the absence of government.

 

[Dale_M]

And I would agree with you that this distinction is important. Which would still mean that mackbrislawn’s illustration is correct, that marriage is not a *civil *right.

Marriage as a human right is a religious concept. Of course, this is a Catholic forum so I don’t expect other than Catholic philosophy. I just wanted to point out that marriage is not universally recognized as a human right and the idea of marriage is a civil right does have currency.

 

[RobbyS]

Marriage as a human right is a religious concept. Of course, this is a Catholic forum so I don’t expect other than Catholic philosophy. I just wanted to point out that marriage is not universally recognized as a human right and the idea of marriage is a civil right does have currency.

What people here call a civil right is described in law books as a civil liberty, a personal, natural right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. Marriage is founded on the notion of a distinction of sex. This notion has been undermined because the distinction of sex matters little if the main purpose of marriage is no longer reproduction but mutual affection and society has pretty much accepted this. When only 25% of the households in the United States with children included their mother and father, then any collection of persons can be accepted as a “family.”

 

[LittleDeb]

Marriage as a human right is a religious concept. Of course, this is a Catholic forum so I don’t expect other than Catholic philosophy. I just wanted to point out that marriage is not universally recognized as a human right and the idea of marriage is a civil right does have currency.

But I, a Catholic, am arguing that marriage is not a human right. I believe it transcends “rights.”

 

[mackbrislawn]

I don’t think it was the Bill of Rights, perhaps you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence?
It doesn’t have force of law and was written many years before the Constitution was written and ratified.

Government grants civil rights, such as free or regulated commerce, and can restrict those same rights. The right of private property is a civil right, granted by government. Otherwise, possession would depend upon strength, which what we would have under anarchy - the absence of government.

The Declaration of Independence is an adumbration of the rights expressed more explicitly later in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, we use the term granting rights, when actually the term recognizing rights would be more apropos. However, saying that the government can restrict rights, is accurate.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The Declaration of Independence is an adumbration of the rights expressed more explicitly later in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, we use the term granting rights, when actually the term recognizing rights would be more apropos. However, saying that the government can restrict rights, is accurate.

i gotta say that this is not about rights, though marriage of any form is indeed a privilege that may be refused by either secular or religious authorities. thats why you have to get a license

simply

it is an offense against G-d, we all sin, i probably more than most, but that doesn’t excuse our complicit cooperation with evil if we support homosexuality as a legitimate life style

there is no proof that one is born gay, though we know some who may claim it. there is no objective proof, until what 1980? it was in the psychiatric list of mental illness.

no one has ever heard a parent talk about hoping their child is gay, it is not the norm, it is a simple perversion

we have a right to set acceptable morals as a matter of democracy

if we cannot ban homosexual marriage, what else is next?

group marriages, polygamy, statutory rape, molestation, child marriage, child abuse

and yes i have heard that those things won’t happen just because homosexuals are allowed to marry.

but there are no better arguments against these practices than there are against gay marriage. these are all things that have been done before, society saw them as a problem and banned them, gay marriage would just be a step back in the evolution of moral societies, not a step forward.

we either have a society in which we can set morals, to protect the innocence of our children, or we don’t