Society is based on the family unit. A stable society relies on this. As did the survival of the Israelites. When you have children somehow gathered in by unrelated same sex couples, there is fragmentation and damage to real identity.Traditional Catholic teachings on church and state mentions the common good a lot. How does gay marriage fit into this according to church’s teachings on state? Must they ban gay marriage?
How destructive to the common good and is it role of the state to get involved in enforcing sexual morality?
It isn’t a question of “banning” SSM, as one might seek to ban a product. In the case of SSM, the analogy is more that it is the government “selling” the product and we question to whom it’s being made available. The Church says it should only be made available (i.e., State recognition of it) to those for whom it properly can apply.Traditional Catholic teachings on church and state mentions the common good a lot. How does gay marriage fit into this according to church’s teachings on state? Must they ban gay marriage?
How destructive to the common good and is it role of the state to get involved in enforcing sexual morality?
“It’s a sin” is not an effective argument. After all, might not Jehova’s witnesses argue that receiving a blood transfusion is sinful. Should the government allow blood transfusions? Is it possible to get consensus on that question by asserting “it’s a sin”?The state should not recognize same-sex marriage because the state would be promoting sin if it recognized same-sex marriage.
The government can allow blood transfusions. That does not mean that they endorse it. The government should not endorse sinfulness.“It’s a sin” is not an effective argument. After all, might not Jehova’s witnesses argue that receiving a blood transfusion is sinful. Should the government allow blood transfusions? Is it possible to get consensus on that question by asserting “it’s a sin”?
So while I agree governments should not redefine marriage, the rational you propose is unlikely to be effective in secular society.
But blood transfusions are held by some to be a sin - so what does that imply - if anything, for what the Government should do? That’s the key point.The government can allow blood transfusions. That does not mean that they endorse it.
The government can do nothing if it wants. It can also stay out of the marriage business if it wants.But blood transfusions are held by some to be a sin - so what does that imply - if anything, for what the Government should do? That’s the key point.
I think the government does endorse blood transfusions. They are incorporated into standard care regimes. They are eligible for financial coverage under various government medical plans. Etc.