Same Sex Marriage and the US Government

[funion987]

If a political candidate says that he will not have the state decide what constitutes marriage but leaves that up the church, is that an acceptable position?

Thanks for any responses.

 

[AthenaC]

Why wouldn’t it be? Regardless of what the state deems marriage to be (or not be), as Catholics we believe that marriage is a sacrament, which has no relationship at all to whatever the state says. Yes, yes - I know that a marriage license (legal document) is usually signed after a religious ceremony, but that’s for convenience rather than one having anything to do with the other.

The only interest the state has from the marriage question is - in what manner should we allow adults to declare that they are one household? Purely administrative question. What goes on (or doesn’t go on) in the bedroom is none of the state’s business. Maybe it’s two siblings, maybe it’s two best friends that have lived together for years, maybe it’s a couple - who knows? Not the state’s business.

 

[vppoole]

The only interest the state has from the marriage question is - in what manner should we allow adults to declare that they are one household? Purely administrative question. What goes on (or doesn’t go on) in the bedroom is none of the state’s business. Maybe it’s two siblings, maybe it’s two best friends that have lived together for years, maybe it’s a couple - who knows? Not the state’s business.

So incest, polygamy or pederasty is none of the state’s business, Athena?

Every community, recognizing marriage as its building block and ensuring its own future, deserves a clear and basic recognition and protection of marriage by the government that doesn’t vary state to state or creed to creed.

If we truly believe that the state in its function has only numbers to be concerned with, then we shouldn’t be surprised if it treats us as something less than human.
But really, how can anyone be ok with that?

 

[po18guy]

But, which church? Many are warming up to the idea. The state has an interest in fostering the continuance of a consistent and stable society. This has been accomplished throughout human history via marriage and stable families. To destroy marriage by legislatively forcing a practice into it that violates the natural law (evolutionary law, if you will), you are creating an unstable demographic situation. Population will then drop, and you have the specter of baby factories popping up to supply the demand for children made by couples that cannot reproduce. And, 100% of same-sex couples cannot reproduce. This also raises the possibility of triple unions, quadruple unions, quintuple unions or what have you. Shatter the one man-one woman formula and the sky will eventually be the limit. Look at the rise in “animal rights.” Can we, if we allow non-reproductive same sex unions, then ban or even restrict inter-species unions?

.

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

The increase in animal rights would properly lessen the chance of inter-species unions. The reason we don’t allow unions between people and animals is because there can be no consent given on such terms.

What consent does the animal have when some person owns one? Or has one sterilized? Or eaten?

 

[fix]

The only interest the state has from the marriage question is - in what manner should we allow adults to declare that they are one household? Purely administrative question. What goes on (or doesn’t go on) in the bedroom is none of the state’s business. Maybe it’s two siblings, maybe it’s two best friends that have lived together for years, maybe it’s a couple - who knows? Not the state’s business.

Much of what passes for reasons in this debate is simply unreflective intuition.

What people often call “private” does not mean it does not affect the culture or society.

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

We can say owning, eating, and sterilizing animals is immoral too, if you’d like (not that I feel like having that debate). There is very little room for a person to have sexual relations with an animal that does not entail needless suffering. We consider the potential for needless suffering to be much less likely in owning, eating, and sterilizing animals. These relative judgements, arbitrary as they are, are things we must necessarily negotiate in order to get at the ethics of something.

So, you agree that there are legitimate arguments for “marrying” animals. If so-called ethics are simply relative then we have no argument as anything goes. That was my point.

What does that do to the moral position of consent between two adults though? I feel like you’re critique didn’t do much to advance your position except frame the arbitrary nature of moral decision making: a position on which most sensible people agree.

I am showing you that what passes for ethics in these discussions is mostly some form of relativism. People assert that marrying an animal is unlikely supposedly due to consent, yet consent is never mentioned for things I mentioned. Then you admit that “suffering” is a vague and relative term the way it is used in this context.

What is the basis for your ethical system?

 

[vsedriver]

If a political candidate says that he will not have the state decide what constitutes marriage but leaves that up the church, is that an acceptable position?

Thanks for any responses.

what constitutes a marriage should be decided by the PEOPLE not the state. Of course our judiciary thinks they should decide what constitutes a marriage.

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

Not if you take into account the part I mentioned about “potential for suffering.” An argument for marrying animals would only stand up if the potential for harm wasn’t high, which it is.

What harm? Worse than killing which we allow now?

Essentially, yes. But we do have values, and most people value the prevention of suffering.

What is a value?

The basis for my ethical system is organized around culturally agreed-upon values and principles:
Preventing suffering, not limiting peoples’ freedom where it is unecessary to do so, proving for unmet needs, etc.

What are those principles derrived from? Nothing–they all tend to stem from evolutionary propensities and social norms.

I want to alert you to something though: you’ve not advanced the reasoning behind your position further than “Because the church told me so.” I would be interested to see you engage this a bit. Not everybody has your religion, so if you want to make an argument for something it has to be on the same relative grounds as I’m making mine, so let’s hear it.

Where have a I said the Church told me so?

I am trying to understand what your argument is based on. So far I see a lot of vague terms.

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

The harm entailed in causing needless suffering (for which the potential is high if humans can marry animals), is worse than killing the animal quickly for food, yes.

What harm? How does the animal suffer by being married?

Principles that we determine are worthy and important for living in a society.

Based on what?

Do you have other reasons for holding the position you do?

Sure, right reason.

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

Potential harm: the potential for harm if a person is legally allowed to have sex with an animal. I think we already discussed this.

Not all married people have sex. And your assertion of harm has not been proven.

More like “Based in what:” our biology, as it’s been shaped by evolution.

I do not know what you mean?

Such as…? I am still waiting to hear about this. I would appreciate if you’d stop dodging it. I know its vulnerable terrain, but this is the internet–you have nothing to lose, I assure you.

I am not dodging anything. I have asked questions to clarify. I do not find your answers very satisfying. You are dodging my questions.

The OP asks a question. My answer to that is no. Marriage is a natural institution that has never been defined as two, or more, people of the same sex.

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

I am not asserting. I am saying the potential for: huge distinction.

That is true of marriage now. So why limit it to humans?

People come to regard certain things as valuable because it helps them survive, on a personal and collective level.

Okay, but still too vague

And do you think your definition of marriage is the only one that should be honorerd. For instance, do you think a civil union definition of marriage is appopriate for those who are not Catholic?

It is not my definition. It is the definition that has always been used.

What do you mean by civil union?

 

[fix]

Thought_Officer:

Because the relative potential harm is greater for animals than humans.

This is going nowhere. Humans do all types of things to animal without consent including tattoos. The notion of harm you are using has not been defined. So far all I can conclude is that marrying animals is justified based on your ethical system.

How shall I expand?

give some examples

It’s certainly the definition that has been used until modern times.

Yes, until about 1990 or so. Marriage has not changed. Some simply want to redifine it for their own purposes.

I mean a ceremonial, perhaps legal union or association between two people (We could say more people, but let’s start here and see where she goes).

The Church accepts that now.

 

[po18guy]

Thought_Officer:

I’m not sure what leads you to believe that society is in a stable position, for one. For two, whatever you’re calling “stable” has been accomplished through many things, marriage included, though sometimes not; this is not to say that a “stable” society will fall to pieces if alternatives are accepted.

Let me see if I can follow your reasoning here. You’re suggesting the only reason population hasn’t dropped yet is because people are not legally allowed to be married in some states? And once legislation is passed, everybody that was once reproducing will cast off the shackles of their dreary heterosexual relationships for relationships in which reproduction isn’t feasible (if that’s possible)? This is poor reasoning on any grounds, but especially when considering the demographic characteristics of the homosexual population (they’re a huge minority).

Just skimming my notes from anatomy class, this seems not to be true. However, same sex couples can’t reproduce through intercourse with each other. There is surrogacy and adoption.

This raises the possibility of unions that involve 10 000 or more people too, but it’s not likely. And I’m sure you’re well aware, legislation isn’t what’s keeping those who desire triple unions from sharing domestic space.

The increase in animal rights would properly lessen the chance of inter-species unions. The reason we don’t allow unions between people and animals is because there can be no consent given on such terms. You’re thinking of it like this: “If they allow one depravity, why not another.” The problem is, secular society doesn’t determine what’s depraved based on whether someone can reproduce with their partner.

You’re constructing an argument in which same-sex marriage leads to catastrophe (population decline, animal abuse, unstable societal relations). But honestly, if same-sex marriage legislation became the norm, and nothing else changed, you still wouldn’t support it because the real reason you’re against it is for your religion’s sake, so why not just say that?

Wishful thinking pervades your allegation.

 

[BellsMom]

So, you agree that there are legitimate arguments for “marrying” animals. If so-called ethics are simply relative then we have no argument as anything goes. That was my point.

Animals can’t enter into a legally binding contract though.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Thought_Officer:

fix;9071877:

That is true of marriage now. So why limit it to humans?

Because the relative potential harm is greater for animals than humans.

How shall I expand?

**
It’s certainly the definition that has been used until modern times.**

I mean a ceremonial, perhaps legal union or association between two people (We could say more people, but let’s start here and see where she goes).

Quick question. If modern society says 1+1=3, then does 1+1=3?

 

[vppoole]

The Church accepts that now.

What source gave you that impression?

 

[fix]

Animals can’t enter into a legally binding contract though.

That can be changed.

 

[fix]

What source gave you that impression?

I was refering to the fact that the Church accepts marriages as valid by non Catholics that are not bound by Catholic form.