Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

[mitex]

The homosexuals I’m concerned about are the ones who are on the streets vocally demanding the redefinition of marriage, and family.

On the other hands the ones I like, and are my friends are like this:

One of my friends is in a same-sex relationship, but you would never know it. They don’t hold hands in public, they don’t advocate for same-sex marriage (actually their both against it), their against adoption for gays, they vote Republican, and their pro-life.

Oh and their celibate. They don’t have sex. Their relationship is purely for companionship. As far as I’m concerned they don’t stir up trouble or bother anyone. I wish more gays were like that.

 

[edwest2]

pfox.org/about_us.html

Hope this helps,

Ed

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The homosexuals I’m concerned about are the ones who are on the streets vocally demanding the redefinition of marriage, and family.

On the other hands the ones I like, and are my friends are like this:

One of my friends is in a same-sex relationship, but you would never know it. They don’t hold hands in public, they don’t advocate for same-sex marriage (actually their both against it), their against adoption for gays, they vote Republican, and their pro-life.

Oh and their celibate. They don’t have sex. Their relationship is purely for companionship. As far as I’m concerned they don’t stir up trouble or bother anyone. I wish more gays were like that.

That is why there is truth to the statement

If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
,

 

[fix]

So you have no objection to two people who sign a certificate and make certain declarations in front of a Registrar being taxed as a couple? That sounds very like a Civil Union to me.

That depends on the law. What is or is not a civil union depends on how the law is written.

I disagree. They cannot redefine Catholic marriage, but they can redefine civil marriage, because civil marriage is defined by the government in the first place.

That is like redefining Pi. The law has no authority of such things.

Except for Solomon, David and various other Biblical patriarchs.

As I said deviations do not erase what is true.

You are incorrect here. There is no single “true marriage”. Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

The Catholic Church has authority over Catholic marriage. The government has authority over civil marriage. The two are already different, as with divorce.

rossum

None of that proves your point. It shows deformations occur.

 

[rossum]

That is like redefining Pi. The law has no authority of such things.

False analogy. Civil law is defined by civil law (obviously). Pi is not defined by civil law. Laws are made and unmade by governments.

As I said deviations do not erase what is true.

How do we know which are “true” and which are “deviations”? We have a number of options, including at least one given directly by God to His prophet. Who gets to choose which of the various definitions is correct? The one in Nehemiah which supports racial criteria for marriage? That would make Loving v Virginia a “deviation”.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

As a previous poster pointed out, civil unions include dozens of legal privileges. Accomplishing the same rights through individual paperwork would involve thousands in lawyer fees. This does not even mention that some acts, like passing a government pension to someone, requires a marriage or civil union. Why should people not be able to pass their pension on to someone of the same gender if they wish?

Of course, some people who enter into these legal unions well be immoral sexually. But many people who enter into civil marriages are immoral sexually, and that has not encouraged the church to try to make them illegal. They understand that the good causes by the moral civil marriages outweigh the bad caused by the immoral ones. In the same way, the good caused by allowing non-sexual couples to enter into a union well outweigh the bad caused by those who are sexual.

But even if the legal troubles were not true, I could just say “because I don’t want to”. This discussion is not about whether or not civil unions are ok, it its about whether or not they are against Catholic teaching. And since nowhere does the Catholic church condemn civil unions between members of the same sex who do not have sex, I have no need to explain my decisions on that matter. I simply feel the government should not be able to tell people what gender person should inherit their belongings and make medical decisions for them. Even if these are accomplished through much more tedious individual forms, I do not think it should be easier for one person than for another just because of their gender.

I noticed you did this same thing in another thread. You claim something is against the teaching of the church, but when asked to actually prove that claim, you are unable to do so and therefore resort to showing why you, personally, disagree with it. My goal is not to convince you that same-sex sex civil unions are good (although I would still like to do so, since I honestly think they are the just and moral thing to do), my goal is to find out if they are, in fact, against church teaching. And since no one has yet to show me where the church condemns legal recognition of non-sexual same-sex civil unions, I am forced to conclude they are not against church teaching.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-conley-warns-against-dangerous-colorado-civil-unions-bill/

Then why get the civil union? Just for the benefits? And who pays for those benefits?

Your conclusion offers no proof that the civil union document will include a guarantee that it will be non-sexual. That statement is totally naive and amounts to guesswork, not reality.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

False analogy. Civil law is defined by civil law (obviously). Pi is not defined by civil law. Laws are made and unmade by governments.

Civil law is bound by logic. Marriage cannot exist between two same sex persons. Redefining it does not change what it really is. You cannot change Pi and you cannot change marriage.

How do we know which are “true” and which are “deviations”? We have a number of options, including at least one given directly by God to His prophet. Who gets to choose which of the various definitions is correct? The one in Nehemiah which supports racial criteria for marriage? That would make Loving v Virginia a “deviation”.

rossum

That is like asking how do you know if water is wet. What is self evident does not need more explanation than has been given hundreds of times right here. Only in recent times of hedonism, relativism, and nihilism would any person ask for a definition of marriage.

 

[Stephen168]

However, the government does have the right to define tax law, civil unions and many other things. Even with civil marriage, the government has allowed divorce, which is contrary to the Catholic version of marriage, and has disallowed more than one wife, which is contrary to the Moslem version of marriage.

While government does not have the right to redefine religious marriage, it does have the right to redefine civil marriage, and civil unions.

rossum

You seem to be confusing the word define with regulate. The state does regulate taxes and marriage but does not define them.

 

[rossum]

Civil law is bound by logic. Marriage cannot exist between two same sex persons. Redefining it does not change what it really is. You cannot change Pi and you cannot change marriage.

Logic?

Premise 1: Human beings love other human beings.

Premise 2: Two human beings who love each other should be allowed to marry.

Conclusion: Both opposite sex and same sex marriage should be allowed.

Given the appropriate set of premises, it is possible to prove a large number of things using logic. A logical argument says nothing about the truth of its premises, it merely derives conclusions from them. If you insert a different set of premises then you may well get a different conclusion at the end of the argument.

This argument is not about logic, it is about what set of premises to use.

What is self evident does not need more explanation than has been given hundreds of times right here. Only in recent times of hedonism, relativism, and nihilism would any person ask for a definition of marriage.

Now, that is a logical fallacy. You are assuming your desired conclusion. It is not “self evident” that marriage has only one definition. Anyone can win a logical argument by assuming their desired conclusion:

Premise 1: fix owes rossum $1,000.

Conclusion: fix owes rossum $1,000.

You need to demonstrate that all your premises are correct. In this case there are many different versions or marriage present in the world today, including both same sex marriage and same sex civil unions. You cannot just hand wave them away.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You seem to be confusing the word define with regulate. The state does regulate taxes and marriage but does not define them.

If the state does not define taxes, then who does? Do they just appear out of thin air?

If the state does not define civil marriage then who does. Note that I am not talking about religious marriage, which is defined differently by different religious bodies. This thread is about civil marriage/unions.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

Logic?

Premise 1: Human beings love other human beings.

Premise 2: Two human beings who love each other should be allowed to marry.

Why only two? Would the human include siblings and parent-child love?

Conclusion: Both opposite sex and same sex marriage should be allowed.

Given the appropriate set of premises, it is possible to prove a large number of things using logic. A logical argument says nothing about the truth of its premises, it merely derives conclusions from them. If you insert a different set of premises then you may well get a different conclusion at the end of the argument.

This argument is not about logic, it is about what set of premises to use.

Your premise 2 is unclear as to what marriage is, so your conclusion does not make sense. Do you have a better premise?

 

[Stephen168]

If the state does not define taxes, then who does? Do they just appear out of thin air?

If the state does not define civil marriage then who does. Note that I am not talking about religious marriage, which is defined differently by different religious bodies. This thread is about civil marriage/unions.

rossum

As much as the state likes to call some taxes a ‘fee’ they are still a tax and the state regulates them. Marriage is an ancient human institution that existed before the state and at some point the state began to regulate them; the state did not invent them.

 

[Seeker1961]

That is why there is truth to the statement

If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
,

In my experience, such sweeping generalizations aren’t all that accurate. Some people who quietly lead their lives believe in legislation that will give everyone the right to believe as they choose and marry the consenting adult human of their choice.

 

[fix]

Logic?

Premise 1: Human beings love other human beings.

Premise 2: Two human beings who love each other should be allowed to marry.

Conclusion: Both opposite sex and same sex marriage should be allowed.

Given the appropriate set of premises, it is possible to prove a large number of things using logic. A logical argument says nothing about the truth of its premises, it merely derives conclusions from them. If you insert a different set of premises then you may well get a different conclusion at the end of the argument.

This argument is not about logic, it is about what set of premises to use.

I am referring to propriety. There is no logic in claiming marriage is anything other than what it is. You can do it but it cannot change the truth of the matter.

Your examples use the term “love” which can mean anything if not properly defined.

Now, that is a logical fallacy. You are assuming your desired conclusion. It is not “self evident” that marriage has only one definition. Anyone can win a logical argument by assuming their desired conclusion:

It is self evident and has been up until about 5 minutes ago.

Premise 1: fix owes rossum $1,000.

Conclusion: fix owes rossum $1,000.

You need to demonstrate that all your premises are correct. In this case there are many different versions or marriage present in the world today, including both same sex marriage and same sex civil unions. You cannot just hand wave them away.

rossum

Fix:Murder is always wrong. Asserted as self evident.

Rossum: please provide a proof.

Fix: none is needed for any rational person.

 

[rossum]

It is self evident and has been up until about 5 minutes ago.

No, it is not self-evident. Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities. You pick one of these, I pick a different one. Both of us reject a number of other versions.

Fix:Murder is always wrong. Asserted as self evident.

Rossum: please provide a proof.

Fix: none is needed for any rational person.

Rossum: No proof needed because it is a tautology. Murder is defined as “wrongful killing”, hence it is, by definition, always wrong. There are other forms of killing, such as in self-defence, the execution of a criminal or in a just war. Those forms of killing are not murder because they are not wrong.

Your example was a logical tautology, much like my $1,000 example and like your assumption of only one allowed form of marriage. A tautology is logically correct in that it is always true, but it is not going to convince anyone. Were you convinced that you owed me $1,000?

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

No, it is not self-evident. Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.

All designed for the creation and rearing of children

 

[fix]

No, it is not self-evident. Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities. You pick one of these, I pick a different one. Both of us reject a number of other versions.

You keep posting deviations as if that is proof a single true definition of marriage has never existed. I can post societies that practiced child sacrifice. So? Is that proof murder is right sometimes?

Rossum: No proof needed because it is a tautology.

No tautology. Self evident.

Murder is defined as “wrongful killing”, hence it is, by definition, always wrong. There are other forms of killing, such as in self-defence, the execution of a criminal or in a just war. Those forms of killing are not murder because they are not wrong.

No, sorry. The point is the definition of murder is constant. The definition of marriage is constant. Deviations happen. That does not change the essence of what marriage or murder have always been.

Your example was a logical tautology, much like my $1,000 example and like your assumption of only one allowed form of marriage. A tautology is logically correct in that it is always true, but it is not going to convince anyone. Were you convinced that you owed me $1,000?

rossum

I cannot convince one who refuses to be convinced. I have logic, common sense, and thousands of years of history on my side. You have illogic, relativism, and the desire to uproot society’s understanding of the common good.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

In my experience, such sweeping generalizations aren’t all that accurate. Some people who quietly lead their lives believe in legislation that will give everyone the right to believe as they choose and marry the consenting adult human of their choice.

Sure. I have no doubt that there is a swath of “conservative” homosexuals who just quietly live active homosexual lives. They are not prevented from doing so. They do not join their vocal and noisy militant gay activists in the streets and in various supportive media. But they will stand with the militants in votes and political action to enshrine SS"M" in law, would welcome the financial and tax benefits, as well as “rights” to adopt children. These homosexuals are not really different at their core from the liberal homosexuals.

Not all Muslims are terrorists. They have or had no responsibility for the downing of the Twin Towers. But there were so-called “peaceful” Muslims who danced in the streets with joy after 9-11.

 

[rossum]

You keep posting deviations as if that is proof a single true definition of marriage has never existed. I can post societies that practiced child sacrifice. So? Is that proof murder is right sometimes?

It is proof that in some societies human sacrifice was not wrong because it was in accordance with the gods’ wishes. You might want to read the story of Jephtha’s daughter in this context. In Buddhism the exceptions for executions, war and self-defence are not allowed. All killing is treated as murder.

You have a number of possible definitions of marriage to pick from. The most popular definitions allow divorce: Protestants, Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist and pretty much all secular definitions. It is the Catholic definition that is the exception on divorce. What criterion are you using to pick one out of the many?

No, sorry. The point is the definition of murder is constant.

No it is not. In Buddhism the three exceptions, such as executing a criminal, do not apply; all killing is murder. You yourself provided another example of a different definition: human sacrifice.

The definition of marriage is constant. Deviations happen.

The definition of marriage is not constant. Changes happen. You are looking for something unchanging where there is change. You are doomed to be disappointed.

rossum

 

[Stephen168]

The definition of marriage is not constant.

The purpose of marriage and therefore its definition has not changed.

Why only two? Would the human include siblings and parent-child love?
Your premise 2 is unclear as to what marriage is, so your conclusion does not make sense. Do you have a better premise?