Quick Question on Political vs. Moral Beliefs

[stringbeanduck]

Not always.

You can think gays marrying is wrong, but be ok with it politically. Who are you to force your own system of morals and values on someone else? Assuming you’re in America, this goes against the very foundations of our nation.

I personally think abortion is something that is wrong both morally and politically, because it harms (read: kills) a human life. The same goes for end of life issues, but I think that is not as strong of an argument politically.

So, I think one can have thier moral beliefs and not exactly want them enforced politcally.

Also…never forget that once you say something should not be allowed politically, you give the government control over something in your life. For instance, if you allow the government to remove porn from culture, religion could be next…

If I’m against same sex marriage morally, you can darn well bet I’ll be against it politically. How can be not okay with something morally, but be okay with it politically anyhow?. BTW my votes and morals are just votes and morals, I have no power whatsover to cram my system of beliefs down another.

The U.S goverment doesn’t have the power to remove religion from our culture. It can limit religion in public places, but they can not remove it. There are more Americans than there are goverment people you no.

 

[brandymmiller]

I won’t answer your question, but I will ask you one:

Should your beliefs match your actions?

 

[rusty20]

Then are you saying it is okay with you if gay marriages are allowed by the government? Do you think they are morally alright?

I personally don’t think that gays marrying is morally alright. But America was not formed to enforce my beliefs, or the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I personally think government should not be in the business of marriage. However, it is probably discriminatory to allow one group of people (heterosexuals) to have legal benefits from marriage and not allow another group (homosexuals) to have those benefits. I will repeat that I would feel a lot better if the government had nothing to do with marriage.

Are you saying that euthanasia is okay? Would you not oppose this as a political issue?

I don’t think euthanasia is ok. However, I’m not sure if the government should be able to punish suicide, which can be done through euthanasia. I will NEVER support forced euthanasia. However, I’m not sure if it is right for the government to be able to say that people are not allowed to kill themselves.

I’m undecided on this though. And I haven’t really thought it through…

Do you then think that murder should be allowed? Murder is both moral and political. I think morals and politics are entertwined.

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Now you’re just being intellectually dishonest. Murder directly harms (kills) a member of society.

I think we have a problem when we decide that because we don’t want something done, that we want to outlaw that thing. It makes sense in the case of murder and abortion, where a member of society is directly harmed. However, in gay marriage (and perhaps in some forms of euthanasia) there is a problem because gays marrying does not really harm you…

What will Catholics do next? Make contraception illegal? Make pornography illegal?

When Catholics create their own nation of Catholics, then maybe they can enforce such rules.

 

[rusty20]

If I’m against same sex marriage morally, you can darn well bet I’ll be against it politically. How can be not okay with something morally, but be okay with it politically anyhow?. BTW my votes and morals are just votes and morals, I have no power whatsover to cram my system of beliefs down another.

Please see my comments on the post above this…

The U.S goverment doesn’t have the power to remove religion from our culture. It can limit religion in public places, but they can not remove it. There are more Americans than there are goverment people you no.

I know they cannot remove it. I was not necessarily talking about America. I’m talking about politics in general. The more you want to outlaw things politically, the more likely freedom is to go away, even religious freedom. This probably wouldn’t happen in America. However, it happens in communist countries. Religion is one of the first things to go…

I will leave you with a quote for reflection:

“What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long.” – Thomas Sowell

 

[chain]

fwiw, I do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, I strongly do not approve of the aggressive way it’s acceptance is being forced upon our society.

The government recognizing marriage has to do with social engineering. We allow various items to specifically not be equal to encourage behavior (this is no different than the tax on alcohol and tobacco). We used think that traditional nuclear families has a positive impact on society - so we created tax code, and insurance regulations to promote them. Now a different group says that is not fair - but that policy was to promote traditional families - it was never intended to be fair.

Once upon a time, we realized that the strength of our nation was it’s next generation. We have forgotten that.

 

[Ender]

I think we have a problem when we decide that because we don’t want something done, that we want to outlaw that thing. It makes sense in the case of murder and abortion, where a member of society is directly harmed. However, in gay marriage (and perhaps in some forms of euthanasia) there is a problem because gays marrying does not really harm you…

What criteria do you use to decide when the state should ban or require certain behavior? If you think it is appropriate for you to specify those criteria could you deny that right to others even if those others have very different criteria than you? If this question is answered simply by saying the majority rules then what “makes sense” is nothing more than what 50% plus one of the voters say it is. If you think there are absolute criteria that should be used then I’d like to know their source.

Ender

 

[rusty20]

What criteria do you use to decide when the state should ban or require certain behavior? If you think it is appropriate for you to specify those criteria could you deny that right to others even if those others have very different criteria than you? If this question is answered simply by saying the majority rules then what “makes sense” is nothing more than what 50% plus one of the voters say it is. If you think there are absolute criteria that should be used then I’d like to know their source.

Ender

America was founded on individual liberty. Unless your actions harm another person, they should be allowed. If two men want to have sex with each other in their own bedroom, then so be it. If they want to do it in the park, where children are playing, then we have a problem. If you want to do marijuana in your basement, then go right ahead. But once your smoking merijuana leads you to harm me, thne we have a problem. If you wanna get completely sloshed drunk, thne be my guest. But if you think you are going to drive on the road, where you have a good risk of killing someone while intoxicated, then I’m not ok with that.

Your rights end where they infringe upon the rights of others.

Why should our right to religious belief stop a gay man’s right to “marrying” his “lover”.

I don’t agree with what he wants to do, but I don’t think my religious beliefs trump his personal liberties recognized by the Constitution…

Majoritarian politics is not something I advocate. I have a fun quote on that too:

“The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this.” – Ron Paul

 

[elts1956]

To my knowledge I don’t know any specific doctrine that says one must apply moral beliefs to political ones, however if one is morally opposed to certain evils, it is illogical not to apply them politically. For example, I’m against abortion, but voted for candidate X who is for and wants to increase abortion rates. Read this,

caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf

This article explains how we should apply our Catholic selves in the voting booth.

If one thinks to be against something, then they are probably going to mind if the gov supports and condones it.

Stringbean, you continue to amaze me. Keep up the good work and thinking.

I wish the USCCB had used the CAF guidelines regarding voting issues, rather than continually confusing people by being politically correct in their statements and talking out of both side of their mouths.

 

[elts1956]

To my knowledge I don’t know any specific doctrine that says one must apply moral beliefs to political ones, however if one is morally opposed to certain evils, it is illogical not to apply them politically. For example, I’m against abortion, but voted for candidate X who is for and wants to increase abortion rates. Read this,

caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf

This article explains how we should apply our Catholic selves in the voting booth.

If one thinks to be against something, then they are probably going to mind if the gov supports and condones it.

What criteria do you use to decide when the state should ban or require certain behavior? If you think it is appropriate for you to specify those criteria could you deny that right to others even if those others have very different criteria than you? If this question is answered simply by saying the majority rules then what “makes sense” is nothing more than what 50% plus one of the voters say it is. If you think there are absolute criteria that should be used then I’d like to know their source.

Ender

That source of Absolute Truths you talk about are taught by the Catholic Church. They have been in existence since the time of Christ and some before, you know, the ten commandments?

 

[elts1956]

We are required to uphold the teachings of the Church. The Church does not usually lay down political policy - but it does give us teaching on social issues. We are required to vote with an informed conscious. Within that that Church helps us to develop an informed conscious.

There are a number of social issues that face us. Within those we need to weigh the candidates to find one that will support the greater good. The USCCB gives us a document that helps point out some of those issues. It has also helped us with the weighing of those, by showing which are underlying issues that are non-negotiable. No combination of any other issues can be more important than a single non-negotiable issues (a foundation is necessary). As such we are obligated to not vote for a candidate that supports a non-negotiable issue.

The non-negotiable issues are abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning and homosexual “marriage”). The USCCB helped to explain why these are non-negotiable - but there are numerous church documents that also explain them in far more detail.

If you have issues with one of these, I suggest doing your best to research the background behind the churches position. I know I have had problems with specific church teaching, only to find as I have looked into it deeper my beliefs were superficial and the churches were a product of generations of thought, prayer, and revelation. Now I try start with the assumption the church is correct, and as I get time I try to discover why. Ultimately this is about “thy will” as opposed to “my will” being done - with the goal to unify the two.

YES! I would recognize you anywhere. You ARE a Catholic.

 

[elts1956]

We are required to uphold the teachings of the Church. The Church does not usually lay down political policy - but it does give us teaching on social issues. We are required to vote with an informed conscious. Within that that Church helps us to develop an informed conscious.

There are a number of social issues that face us. Within those we need to weigh the candidates to find one that will support the greater good. The USCCB gives us a document that helps point out some of those issues. It has also helped us with the weighing of those, by showing which are underlying issues that are non-negotiable. No combination of any other issues can be more important than a single non-negotiable issues (a foundation is necessary). As such we are obligated to not vote for a candidate that supports a non-negotiable issue.

The non-negotiable issues are abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning and homosexual “marriage”). The USCCB helped to explain why these are non-negotiable - but there are numerous church documents that also explain them in far more detail.

If you have issues with one of these, I suggest doing your best to research the background behind the churches position. I know I have had problems with specific church teaching, only to find as I have looked into it deeper my beliefs were superficial and the churches were a product of generations of thought, prayer, and revelation. Now I try start with the assumption the church is correct, and as I get time I try to discover why. Ultimately this is about “thy will” as opposed to “my will” being done - with the goal to unify the two.

Not always.

You can think gays marrying is wrong, but be ok with it politically. Who are you to force your own system of morals and values on someone else? Assuming you’re in America, this goes against the very foundations of our nation.

I personally think abortion is something that is wrong both morally and politically, because it harms (read: kills) a human life. The same goes for end of life issues, but I think that is not as strong of an argument politically.

So, I think one can have thier moral beliefs and not exactly want them enforced politcally.

Also…never forget that once you say something should not be allowed politically, you give the government control over something in your life. For instance, if you allow the government to remove porn from culture, religion could be next…

The kind of country you will live in is a result of the values you have and the values you support or allow politically. Our founding fathers never said to take religion out of our country, but only said no state religion could be established. What sort of country do you want to live in? A country that holds nothing as absolute truth, that every issue is one of Prudential (subjective) judgement?. Or do you want to uphold the truth as taught by the Catholic Church and live in a nation which supports the belief and commandments of God? A nation with a Christian foundation, or one with no foundation at all??

To believe something is morally wrong, then allow it to be either established, or let the government take away protective laws, as is the case in allowing abortions, is to hide your head in the sand or hope that elephant in the living room will never step on you.

Good luck.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

I personally don’t think that gays marrying is morally alright. But America was not formed to enforce my beliefs, or the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

But we should enforce other people’s belief systems via gay marriage? I personally think government should not be in the business of marriage. However, it is probably discriminatory to allow one group of people (heterosexuals) to have legal benefits from marriage and not allow another group (homosexuals) to have those benefits. It’s not discriminatory because it’s not based on orientation it’s based on the type of relationship. If a gay man wants to marry a gay woman, it would be allowed. If 2 straight men want to marry to get tax benifits it would not be allowed.

America was founded on individual liberty. Unless your actions harm another person, they should be allowed. If two men want to have sex with each other in their own bedroom, then so be it. If they want to do it in the park, where children are playing, then we have a problem. If you want to do marijuana in your basement, then go right ahead. But once your smoking merijuana leads you to harm me, thne we have a problem. If you wanna get completely sloshed drunk, thne be my guest. But if you think you are going to drive on the road, where you have a good risk of killing someone while intoxicated, then I’m not ok with that.

That doesn’t address gay marriage at all. Gay marriage is about a legal definition, not freedom.

The USCCB’s said we should oppose gay marriage

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

 

[cfdmpo]

One of the things we are told not to do is to lead another into sin. By supporting immoral issues, even when we disagree, we are leading another to sin. According to the Bible, this is as bad as the sin itself.

 

[rusty20]

But we should enforce other people’s belief systems via gay marriage?

It’s not enforcing a gay belief system to allow gay marriage. It is enforcing the idea of individual liberties and freedom. It IS enforcing a Christian belief system to NOT allow gay marriage.

It’s not discriminatory because it’s not based on orientation it’s based on the type of relationship. If a gay man wants to marry a gay woman, it would be allowed. If 2 straight men want to marry to get tax benifits it would not be allowed.

Why ought certain relationships be illegal? You can say its not based on orientation all you want. That doesn’t change the fact that it is discriminatory against one sector of society. The fact remains that gays are not allowed to marry whom they want to marry. That is discriminatory.

Does anybody recognize the DANGER of the opinion that because we think something is wrong, we want the government to outlaw it? Reply to this statement:

"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long." – Thomas Sowell

 

[Ender]

The fact remains that gays are not allowed to marry whom they want to marry. That is discriminatory.

All choices are discriminatory; that’s pretty much what the word means. Actually, it has two meanings: one is to distinguish between things and the other is to distinguish between things unjustly. Not allowing gays to marry is discriminatory according to the first meaning but not the second.

Does anybody recognize the DANGER of the opinion that because we think something is wrong, we want the government to outlaw it? Reply to this statement:

"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long." – Thomas Sowell

The opposite side of this claim is that, if we took it literally, we would outlaw nothing at all since the implication is that once we prohibit anything we’re on our way to prohibiting everything. This is clearly not what Sowell is referring to. His - valid - point is that there needs to be a firmer basis behind our prohibition of things than simply that they offend us, which is not at all the same as saying we shouldn’t ban things that we oppose for good reasons.

Ender

 

[rusty20]

All choices are discriminatory; that’s pretty much what the word means. Actually, it has two meanings: one is to distinguish between things and the other is to distinguish between things unjustly. Not allowing gays to marry is discriminatory according to the first meaning but not the second.

Care to actually back up the claim, as opposed to just throwing it out there?

The opposite side of this claim is that, if we took it literally, we would outlaw nothing at all since the implication is that once we prohibit anything we’re on our way to prohibiting everything. This is clearly not what Sowell is referring to. His - valid - point is that there needs to be a firmer basis behind our prohibition of things than simply that they offend us, which is not at all the same as saying we shouldn’t ban things that we oppose for good reasons.

Yes. So, the question becomes: do we have a valid reason to not allow gays to marry?

Let me remind you MY stance:

I think the government should not be involved in marriage at all. Thus, marriage should be a purely private thing, or religious thing, given your personal beliefs. That’s what I would prefer.

I really don’t think government has any business regulating marriage or any other social relationships at all.

 

[PJM]

=NicholasGH;5666073]So. I really don’t know what my political beliefs are now. I’m a teenager, they change just about as often as the time of day. Regardless, I had a few questions. If I am MORALLY opposed to something, does that neccessarily mean I have to be POLITICALLY opposed to it? For instance, gay marriage. I’m really not sure whether or not it should be allowed politically, but I am very against it morally. I’ll put it this way- if a referendum was issued to the people of the USA about whether or not to allow gay marriage, I’m not sure about how I would vote. However, if a friend told me he was gay, and asked for advice, I would, of course, tell him not to act on his homosexuality, and that he should remain single and chaste.

To put it simply, are Catholics required to support all Catholic doctrine politically?

Wow:thumbsup: Awesome question.

The answer is always and olny YES! to not do so is to factually deny TRUTH!

Love and prayers,

 

[Christopher68]

The kind of country you will live in is a result of the values you have and the values you support or allow politically. Our founding fathers never said to take religion out of our country, but only said no state religion could be established. What sort of country do you want to live in? A country that holds nothing as absolute truth, that every issue is one of Prudential (subjective) judgement?. Or do you want to uphold the truth as taught by the Catholic Church and live in a nation which supports the belief and commandments of God? A nation with a Christian foundation, or one with no foundation at all??

To believe something is morally wrong, then allow it to be either established, or let the government take away protective laws, as is the case in allowing abortions, is to hide your head in the sand or hope that elephant in the living room will never step on you.

Good luck.

You ask ‘what sort of country do you want to live in’? I want to live in a country that adheres to the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. I want to live in a country that values individual liberty and personal responsibility. I want to live in a country that has a government structure that does not allow me to enforce my religious beliefs on others - or that allows others to enforce their religious beliefs on me.

 

[Bluegoat]

Care to actually back up the claim, as opposed to just throwing it out there?

Yes. So, the question becomes: do we have a valid reason to not allow gays to marry?

Let me remind you MY stance:

I think the government should not be involved in marriage at all. Thus, marriage should be a purely private thing, or religious thing, given your personal beliefs. That’s what I would prefer.

I really don’t think government has any business regulating marriage or any other social relationships at all.

In my province, there was a new law enacted during the time gay marriage was very active before the courts, which was designed to try to avoid some of the legal issues. In a way it turned out to be a non-issue with regard to gay marriage, but it was interesting. According to it, any two people can enter into the agreement and they become the legal equivalent of married people. So as far as taxes, pensions, family benefits etc go, or if the “divorce” the rules are pretty much the same.

But, there is no assumption of any kind of sexual relationship. So two sisters who decided to live as a household in order to raise the child of one of them could enter this partnership, for example. In cases like that it can actually be quite useful legally.

Marriage is, I think, a difficult issue for the state to deal with. It can’t really make decisions without straying into territory it doesn’t have the ability to really think about effectively. So it ends up being what the majority thinks is right or fair. Once there is a real split, it can’t deal with it. How could a congress or parliament really debate gay marriage, or polygamy, without getting into theology or other issues it isn’t willing to debate about? Even thinking about politicians having a real debate about it is almost comical.

 

[Ender]

Care to actually back up the claim, as opposed to just throwing it out there?

Back up my counter claim to the claim you just threw out and didn’t back up? Sure. I see it as the difference between using the word marriage as a description of an actual thing and using it as an arbitrary construct. In the former sense it describes a particular relationship entered into by a man and a woman; in the latter sense it is nothing more than a legal creation like a corporation or an LLC. There really is no difference between saying two men (or two women) can “marry” than there is in saying a marriage can consist of one man and several women, multiple men and multiple women, or even an old woman and her cats. It is entirely artificial.

I really don’t think government has any business regulating marriage or any other social relationships at all.

I suspect the real issue has little to do with marriage per se and a great deal to do with gaining official recognition and acceptance of homosexual behavior. It is moral equivalence that is sought, not legal benefits.

Ender