Report: "Massachusetts Town Legalizes Polygamy Using Same Arguments For Gay Marriage,"

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Why is there a reticence to admit that in some (I won’t even say most) cases where people have sex without being married it causes no harm to society?

Here’s 2,411 reasons.

It’s already been pointed out that this is a nonsensical argument. And I’ve already pointed out in any case that unprotected sex with multiple partners can end up with unwanted pregnancies and probably abortions. Has there been any argument against that?

But the term ‘sex outside marriage’ seems to get people running around waving their arms about and screaming that the world is coming to an end.

The point that I made waaay upstream is that sex outside marriage is not necessarily harmful. I gave examples where it could be. And I also gave an example where it wouldn’t be. But the tunnel vision being exhibited here doesn’t allow anyone at all to say ‘Fair enough. That example is reasonable’ and move on. There is a tendency to clamp the hands over the ears and take the nuclear option and post pictures of the results abortions.

It is painfully obvious that there are people on this forum that look at any comment by a non-Catholic and immediately take the position that it cannot be correct. So shall I try again? Well, why not.

My wife and I were married a few days after I asked her to get married and she accepted. I’m pretty certain that we had sex during those few days. Now some posters are adamant that harm is caused on every ocassion that someone has sex outside marriage. Maybe someone could tell me specifically what harm was caused to society in those few days.

 

[27lw]

o_mlly:

The myopic view of an adolescent is never the basis for a sound moral system.

If there is no argument, you start insults. The principle of “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins” is the soundest foundation for a moral / ethical system. Even Jesus endorsed it in the golden rule.

Okay – where do the rights of polyamorous parents end, and the rights of their children begin?
If you’re Catholic, then you might already know that our Church teaches that children have the RIGHT to be born and raised to their two married biological parents.

 

[Freddy]

o_mlly:

Where’s the insult?

Is the “myopic view of an adolescent” now a term of endearment? Somehow I missed that.

Fornication is simply sex between non-married people. And the marriage paper does not add anything to the act or its consequences.

Exactly right. I was married overseas and we had the wedding papers translated and checked (on my wife’s insistence) to make sure it was legally sound. Let’s say we didn’t and it turned out that we’re not married. Does that mean we’ve been ‘harming society’ these last few decades?

Actually, I was obliged to pay a dowry to my father-in-law which I never did. It’s quite possible it’s not valid. But don’t tell my wife…

 

[27lw]

If it turned out that you weren’t married for some technicality, then you and your wife were more like a common-law married couple. Probably not how most “garden variety” fornicators roll.

 

[Rau]

Exactly right. I was married overseas and we had the wedding papers translated and checked (on my wife’s insistence) to make sure it was legally sound. Let’s say we didn’t and it turned out that we’re not married. Does that mean we’ve been ‘harming society’ these last few decades?

That’s more than a tad disingenuous Fred. I think the point is that when a couple marry, their commitment to each other, and to anticipate the potential to be raising children at some point, is on average greater than when folks “hook up”. Whether some legal process attached to the marriage had a flaw is irrelevant to the point.

It would be quite wrong to presume that everyone engaged in hookups or non-marital sex would abort their unintended offspring. But the likelihood is probably somewhat higher.

 

[Rau]

Actually, I was obliged to pay a dowry to my father-in-law which I never did. It’s quite possible it’s not valid. But don’t tell my wife…

Interesting! Your wife was on-board with the non-payment I presume. How much was expected/required?

 

[Abrosz]

If you’re Catholic, then you might already know that our Church teaches that children have the RIGHT to be born and raised to their two married biological parents.

I am not, and the most of humanity is not catholic either. What the church teaches has no relevance outside the church. Inside, yes, outside, no.

Causing bodily harm (which is not compensated by some greater physical good is wrong no matter if you are catholic or an atheist. Some psychopath would take exception this concept, but I am not interested the ethical system of sociopaths and psychopaths.

And “rights” social constructs. Whatever the strongest bully around the block - the nation state for atheists, or God for believers allows is a de-facto “right”. There are no “natural” rights, the Declaration of Independence notwithstanding.

 

[27lw]

27lw:

If you’re Catholic, then you might already know that our Church teaches that children have the RIGHT to be born and raised to their two married biological parents.

I am not, and the most of humanity is not catholic either. What the church teaches has no relevance outside the church. Inside, yes, outside, no.

Causing bodily harm (which is not compensated by some greater physical good is wrong no matter if you are catholic or an atheist. Some psychopath would take exception this concept, but I am not interested the ethical system of sociopaths and psychopaths.

And “rights” social constructs. Whatever the strongest bully around the block - the nation state for atheists, or God for believers allows is a de-facto “right”. There are no “natural” rights, the Declaration of Independence notwithstanding.

Oh I always wonder why non-catholics hang around here so much.
You speak disparagingly of rights as just"social constructs" but you’re the one who brought them up!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Actually, I was obliged to pay a dowry to my father-in-law which I never did. It’s quite possible it’s not valid. But don’t tell my wife…

Interesting! Your wife was on-board with the non-payment I presume. How much was expected/required?

Today’s equivalent? I think it was about $100 (£50 Egyptian at the time). I didn’t see him after the marriage for over a year so it slipped my mind. I was actually going to get the local currency note and frame it for him.

 

[Abrosz]

Oh I always wonder why non-catholics hang around here so much.

To learn and widen our horizons.

You speak disparagingly of rights as just"social constructs" but you’re the one who brought them up!

You did, sorry. And reality is not disparaging. This is what you wrote: "

“If you’re Catholic, then you might already know that our Church teaches that children have the RIGHT to be born and raised to their two married biological parents.”

So it was you who brought up the question of “rights”.

 

[27lw]

You wrote in post 87:

o_mlly:

The myopic view of an adolescent is never the basis for a sound moral system.

If there is no argument, you start insults. The principle of “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins” is the soundest foundation for a moral / ethical system. Even Jesus endorsed it in the golden rule.

I responded to that in post 93.

 

[27lw]

Also if you’re here to learn and widen your horizons then enjoy this:

Charter of the Rights of the Family - Wikipedia

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Exactly right. I was married overseas and we had the wedding papers translated and checked (on my wife’s insistence) to make sure it was legally sound. Let’s say we didn’t and it turned out that we’re not married. Does that mean we’ve been ‘harming society’ these last few decades?

That’s more than a tad disingenuous Fred. I think the point is that when a couple marry, their commitment to each other, and to anticipate the potential to be raising children at some point, is on average greater than when folks “hook up”. Whether some legal process attached to the marriage had a flaw is irrelevant to the point.

Exactly. I brought that extreme example up as a starting point. A basis for further discussion. Effectively saying ‘This is obviously a case where there is no harm’ and expecting to move on from there.

But even that has not been accepted by some. Well, except by you and to a certain extent 27lw above. Where can the discussion go if you make a point which is not controversial in any way and it gets shot down?

But moving on from there anyway, there are obvious exceptions. So it would be a good idea to see where people draw the line and why. Is it OK when you have made that lifetime committment (because the paperwork and a ceremony doesn’t seem to guarantee anything)? Is a ‘common law’ partnership OK? And how long does that relationship need to have been going to be classed as such?

 

[Abrosz]

Also if you’re here to learn and widen your horizons then enjoy this:

OK. But words are cheap, even they were issued in the Declaration of Independence, or the Holy See. A “right” is just a “pie in the sky” if it is not and cannot be enforced. Sure, some people declared that they have a “right” to something, but some people violated that “right”. The buzzword for that is “baloney”. An unenforceable “right” is not a right, it is just a bad joke.

God could enforce any right if he wanted to, but unfortunately he does no seem to be interested.

 

[Rau]

A “right” is just a “pie in the sky” if it is not and cannot be enforced.

Isn’t it sometimes the acknowledgement of a priori “rights” that gives rise to laws and enforcement machinery?

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

It’s much better, especially from a mental health perspective, for someone to be their true authentic self as best they can and not feel they must keep secrets about who they are.

Authentic and authority do not mean the same thing. Authentic means natural, genuine. Homosexual acts are not authentic human acts. One must acknowledge that as fallen human beings, we have unnatural urges – everyone of us.

Unnatural urges are not authentic and should be repressed. Are the kleptomaniac’s or anorexic’s or bulemic’s or glutton’s or adulterer’s or fornicator’s mental health safeguarded by affirming their disorders, their “true self”, in public? No.

Authoritative means arising from a self-recognized authority. There does seem to be a consensus among atheists on who is the only authority in their lives: themselves.

Most Americans live with a girlfriend or boyfriend before they get married (if they do eventually get married at all) and don’t usually think of themselves as “fornicators” or attempt to keep their relationships a secret. And although having an eating disorder like anorexia or bulimia is not a good thing and people who have these disorders should seek medical or psychiatric treatment since left untreated they could be fatal, I’m not sure why someone should necessarily strive to conceal the fact that they struggle with these disorders or with any other disorders for that matter if they don’t have to. I have ADHD and don’t go to any great lengths to keep that a secret (fortunately, I don’t have to worry that this might have an impact on my ability to get or keep a job). I’ve found that by being more upfront about this, my friends and family are actually more understanding and more likely to forgive me when I forget to do something or get distracted or have a difficult time finishing something in a timely manner, etc. In general, I think that if someone can safely do so, it’s better to be open and authentic about themselves and the things they struggle with than to keep secrets about themselves. Keeping secrets takes far too much energy and I’m glad not to have many of them anymore.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Exactly. I brought that extreme example up as a starting point. A basis for further discussion. Effectively saying ‘This is obviously a case where there is no harm ’ and expecting to move on from there.

But even that has not been accepted by some. Well, except by you and to a certain extent 27lw above. Where can the discussion go if you make a point which is not controversial in any way and it gets shot down?

Don’t worry about it. Most people on this forum are well meaning but some can sometimes talk past one another and get onto their soapbox about secondary issues. Bit i’m sure they mean well. Please don’t take it to heart.

But moving on from there anyway, there are obvious exceptions. So it would be a good idea to see where people draw the line and why. Is it OK when you have made that lifetime committment (because the paperwork and a ceremony doesn’t seem to guarantee anything)? Is a ‘common law’ partnership OK? And how long does that relationship need to have been going to be classed as such?

Actually the Catholic Church defers to national laws to some degree when it comes to marriages. So maybe a marriage may be possible in one country that would not be allowed in another. In such a case you won’t get far by telling the priest, it is allowed by the same church in country B so why isn’t it allowed here? One such example may be caused by differences in the age of consent between countries. Common law marriage is also country dependent. Some countries recognize it as a legal concept, other do not, and even among those that do recognize it, there are differing legal definitions and implications. AFAIK, according to the Church, it is the intent that matters, and if two people have the fuill intent to lead a married life and go into a marriage ceremony in the full belief that they are getting married legally, and come out fully believing they are legally married, then they are married in the eyes of the Church. If the state deems years later that there was some legal problem, then that does not render the marriage void in the eyes of the Church.

 

[o_mlly]

Where would a married couple who aborts an unintended pregnancy be in the analogy? Same place right? That suggests being unmarried isn’t specifically a component in the causal chain.

Both Pro-life and abortion advocates agree on this fact: Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried.

The appearance of a recent reduction in abortion statistics is misleading. We simply can no longer accurately count the number of abortions with the advent of abortifacient drugs.

You’re trying to attach an extra adjective so you can stigmatize it. If you want to go that route perhaps you should compare Catholic to Protestant abortion rates.

In 2014, 30% of aborting women identified themselves as Protestant and 24% identified themselves as Catholic (AGI).

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

Women who self-identify as Catholic must be questioned further. Do they regularly go to Mass? Do they agree with Church teachings? A “No Answer” would categorize them as “Nominal Catholics” which is synonymous with “non-Catholic”

So in your beer analogy, the fornicators maybe the drunk or the bar keep; both engage in reckless behavior. But we all agree who the innocent pedestrian is that dies: the child.

 

[o_mlly]

And the marriage paper does not add anything to the act or its consequences.

Marriage, a public announcement, is a proclamation to the community of commitment, one to the other, and their progeny of care and responsibility. Why would anyone want to keep such an act of love a secret? Adolescents, maybe?

The balance of the claims in your post are your erroneous opinions about marriage. If you will substantiate the tribal marriages, the inventions of marriage as motivated by greed, etc. I would be glad to refute. What is gratuitously given, may be just as gratuitously dismissed.

 

[o_mlly]

The point that I made waaay upstream is that sex outside marriage is not necessarily harmful.

And your point is invalid. It’s a reckless, irresponsible act. Just as the drunk in Dan’s analogy, the innocent pedestrian and the innocent baby pay the price.