Same Sex Marriage?

[fix]

Correction: FERTILE heterosexual couples, as a class, are capable of producing children. Sterile couples are not, and never will be.

Your argument hinges on how you define a “class”. If, instead, we defined the class as “sterile heterosexual couples”, then the benefit rules would be consistent.

We could also define the class as “any two humans”, and simply note that both sterile heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are small portions of that class that can’t have children, but should still deserve the same benefits.

Heterosexual couples, fertile or not, belong to a class of persons who can produce children. Homosexual pairings belong to no such class and never will.

If you want to sub classify groups then you can concoct anything you want, but that would obfuscate the truth and be artificial.

 

[Silent_Knight]

So apparently British lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favour of a same-sex marriage bill yesterday.

LONDON — British lawmakers on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage championed by Prime Minister David Cameron, despite stronger-than-expected opposition from within his Conservative Party.

In a first House of Commons vote, lawmakers voted 400 to 175 in support of the legislation. There was strong support from the left-leaning Labour Party and Liberal Democrats party, but many Conservatives rejected the proposals.

The bill will have to go through more detailed parliamentary debates and a vote in the House of Lords, where a vote in favor is likely given the strong support Tuesday. If it becomes law, the proposed bill would enable same-sex couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies, provided that the religious institution consents.

Funnily enough on facebook a friend who is Catholic did a “thumbs up” on this article. I am confused. How can you be Catholic, and be in favour of gay marriage??? Would this be the same thing as “Liberal Christians”… you know the OXY MORON that should not really exist.

 

[Kevin_B]

Heterosexual couples, fertile or not, belong to a class of persons who can produce children. Homosexual pairings belong to no such class and never will.

If you want to sub classify groups then you can concoct anything you want, but that would obfuscate the truth and be artificial.

Human couples, heterosexual or not, belong to a class of persons who can produce children.

Why is my classification of “all human couples” any less arbitrary than yours of “any heterosexual couples”?

 

[Kevin_B]

So apparently British lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favour of a same-sex marriage bill yesterday.

Funnily enough on facebook a friend who is Catholic did a “thumbs up” on this article. I am confused. How can you be Catholic, and be in favour of gay marriage??? Would this be the same thing as “Liberal Christians”… you know the OXY MORON that should not really exist.

Because, as a Catholic, you are only REQUIRED to agree with the Church on matters of faith and morals. There is no requirement to agree with the Church on matters off politics or science

 

[fix]

Because, as a Catholic, you are only REQUIRED to agree with the Church on matters of faith and morals. There is no requirement to agree with the Church on matters off politics or science

God is not separate from politics or science. Catholics are bound to oppose unjust laws.

 

[Stephen168]

Because, as a Catholic, you are only REQUIRED to agree with the Church on matters of faith and morals. There is no requirement to agree with the Church on matters off politics or science

This is a matter of morals

 

[fix]

Human couples, heterosexual or not, belong to a class of persons who can produce children.

Why is my classification of “all human couples” any less arbitrary than yours of “any heterosexual couples”?

Because only opposite sex couples can produce children. That is not arbitrary but a fact of nature.

 

[Silent_Knight]

That’s what I think… these so called Catholics are not true Catholics. You can’t just believe what you want and call yourself Catholic. Why would any good Catholic support gay marriage or abortion? Again… it’s the whole “Liberal Catholic” we heard about them and how they stupidly voted for Obama in his first term (probably the even dumber ones voted for him again in 2nd term), these people ought to be ashamed of themselves. This is not the Church’s fault, this is simply bad Catholics, ones that are only Catholic in name, not in spirit. Obama does not respect Catholic values, if these people vote for him they are voting against the Catholic church. No?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Saying something doesn’t make it true. Care to give an example?

Oh just that little society that was once known as the Roman Empire, for starters.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because, as a Catholic, you are only REQUIRED to agree with the Church on matters of faith and morals. There is no requirement to agree with the Church on matters off politics or science

What precisely are political decisions based upon if not sound ethical principles? Are you saying political decisions are immune from moral judgement? If not, then which kind of judgement takes precedent, ethical or political?

If a government, even a democratically based one, were to persecute and kill off minorities as a political decision, should Catholics not stand against that decision because we have no requirement to agree with the Church on political matters?

Your argument assumes that same sex marriage is not a moral matter. That, however, is not Church teaching, therefore you are disagreeing with the Church on a moral, not political, matter.

 

[Silent_Knight]

Can someone explain to me why my last message was removed?

I talked about Liberal Catholics, apparently what I said hit a nerve with someone… the fact I said Liberal Catholics much like the term Liberal Christian in my opinion is an oxy moron. Can someone care to refute that instead of just censoring me?

There wasn’t anything I said that wasn’t true… how can you be Catholic in name only but not in spirit? How can you be for gay marriage and abortion at the same time and still call yourself a Catholic?

What is wrong in what I am saying here?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Can someone explain to me why my last message was removed?

I talked about Liberal Catholics, apparently what I said hit a nerve with someone… the fact I said Liberal Catholics much like the term Liberal Christian in my opinion is an oxy moron. Can someone care to refute that instead of just censoring me?

There wasn’t anything I said that wasn’t true… how can you be Catholic in name only but not in spirit? How can you be for gay marriage and abortion at the same time and still call yourself a Catholic?

What is wrong in what I am saying here?

You are not allowed to question a person’s religion. If they say they are Catholic, you have to accept it.

If you have a problem with them identifying as Catholics, but posting otherwise, report it to the mods.

 

[Kevin_B]

Because only opposite sex couples can produce children.That is not arbitrary but a fact of nature.

That is true.

It is also true that only couples that involve two humans can produce offspring. In fact, any claim you make about “heterosexual couples” can also be made about “couples between two humans”.

Only couples between two humans can produce offspring.
Only heterosexual couples can produce offspring.

Some couples between two humans are unable to produce offspring.
Some heterosexual couples are unable to produce offspring.

You claim that all heterosexual couples should get benefits just because the vast majority can produce offspring.
I claim that all couples between two humans should get benefits just because the vast majority can produce offspring.

If you can give benefits to the minority of heterosexual couples that can’t produce offspring, then I can give benefits to the minority of couples between two humans that can’t produce offspring.

Oh just that little society that was once known as the Roman Empire, for starters.

The Roman empire was immoral.
The Roman empire collapsed.
What evidence do you have that one caused the other?

Or are you claiming that correlation implies causation?

What precisely are political decisions based upon if not sound ethical principles? Are you saying political decisions are immune from moral judgement? If not, then which kind of judgement takes precedent, ethical or political?

If a government, even a democratically based one, were to persecute and kill off minorities as a political decision, should Catholics not stand against that decision because we have no requirement to agree with the Church on political matters?

Your argument assumes that same sex marriage is not a moral matter.That, however, is not Church teaching, therefore you are disagreeing with the Church on a moral, not political, matter.

Sorry, maybe I was not clear. I’m not saying that at all. I just disagree with the Church on the responsibility of government.

The church believes government’s job is to promote morality.
I believe the government’s job is to only protect its citizens from immediate threats to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Since legalizing a government contract between two people of the same gender does not threaten any of these, I do no believe it is our governments responsibility to forbid it.

I agree 100pct with the Church that homosexual marriage is a matter of morals.I just disagree with them on what the function of government should be.

And since “what is the function of government” is not within the realm of the church’s infallibility, I am free to disagree with them.

 

[Kevin_B]

Can someone explain to me why my last message was removed?

I talked about Liberal Catholics, apparently what I said hit a nerve with someone… the fact I said Liberal Catholics much like the term Liberal Christian in my opinion is an oxy moron. Can someone care to refute that instead of just censoring me?

There wasn’t anything I said that wasn’t true… how can you be Catholic in name only but not in spirit? How can you be for gay marriage and abortion at the same time and still call yourself a Catholic?

What is wrong in what I am saying here?

Because it goes against church teaching. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. You may be a Catholic who has fallen out of communion with the Church, but there is no such thing as “ex-Catholic”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=722950

 

[Stephen168]

I agree 100pct with the Church that homosexual marriage is a matter of morals.I just disagree with them on what the function of government should be.

So you support statuary marriage

 

[qui_est_ce]

Because it goes against church teaching. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. You may be a Catholic who has fallen out of communion with the Church, but there is no such thing as “ex-Catholic”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=722950

That is not the reason the post got removed. See my post 112.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Can someone explain to me why my last message was removed?

I talked about Liberal Catholics, apparently what I said hit a nerve with someone… the fact I said Liberal Catholics much like the term Liberal Christian in my opinion is an oxy moron. Can someone care to refute that instead of just censoring me?

There wasn’t anything I said that wasn’t true… how can you be Catholic in name only but not in spirit? How can you be for gay marriage and abortion at the same time and still call yourself a Catholic?

What is wrong in what I am saying here?

Post #103?

 

[Stephen168]

That is true.

It is also true that only couples that involve two humans can produce offspring. In fact, any claim you make about “heterosexual couples” can also be made about “couples between two humans”.

Only couples between two humans can produce offspring.
Only heterosexual couples can produce offspring.

That is only true when you define ‘couple’ as two people of the opposite sex.

fallacy of the undistributed middle

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you support statuary marriage

Meaning a marriage between two statues?

statuary |ˈsta ch oōˌerē|
noun
sculpture consisting of statues; statues regarded collectively : fragments of broken statuary | classical statuary.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sorry, maybe I was not clear. I’m not saying that at all. I just disagree with the Church on the responsibility of government.

The church believes government’s job is to promote morality.

No, the Church’s position is that the government should only enact morally acceptable laws and not those that promote or sanction immoral behaviour.
There is a difference between laws that promote morality (you must go out of your way to do positive good to others like give to the poor or help those in need) and laws that prohibit immoral behaviour (you shouldn’t steal or kill).

The Church position is that redefining marriage actually involves the state in “promoting” immoral behaviour where it should be, minimally, silent on it or, prohibiting it where it does direct harm to innocent parties.

If the state should stay out of the bedrooms of its citizens, then the state has no reason to redefine legislation concerning laws of marriage which were set up to promote the positive good of a mechanism by which new citizens come into existence. That is the only stake the state should, morally and legally, have regarding marriage. Any other involvement is the state doing precisely what you accuse the Church of, which is to promote someone’s notion of sexual morality.

I believe the government’s job is to only protect its citizens from immediate threats to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Since legalizing a government contract between two people of the same gender does not threaten any of these, I do no believe it is our governments responsibility to forbid it.

I agree 100pct with the Church that homosexual marriage is a matter of morals.I just disagree with them on what the function of government should be.

And since “what is the function of government” is not within the realm of the church’s infallibility, I am free to disagree with them.

No one is claiming that the state should be interfering concerning same gender liaisons, but simply that the state has no right to interfere with these and try to control them under the law, in the same way that fertile unions that actually produce new citizens should be, because only then does the state have an actual interest in protecting new citizens that arise from and are, therefore, vulnerable as involuntary participants in the union.

Let’s be very clear where the actual stakes lie and whose alleged interests are being promoted.