E
EasterJoy
Guest
b-i-n-g-o!
- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Double-bingo. (EJ just saved me the trouble of having to box the quote. 
)
Several of us here on CAF, and many others in the public, have noticed this for some time. The actual name of the movement is called “Marriage Equality,” which further underscores what Robert just elaborated on. These movements are every bit as active in states which have every single marital privilege without the term itself, as they are in states with non-recognized unions of any kind. They are also active in states which have the title – being that such residents travel outside their states to advocate, and/or advocate in various ways from within.
What would amuse me about it (if I found the effort amusing, which I don’t) is that it’s a clear attempt to mainstream the supposed “morality” of it – kind of funny since so many of these advocates disdain the very concept of a morality standard outside their own creation of that. (This is also known as hypocrisy.
)
)Several of us here on CAF, and many others in the public, have noticed this for some time. The actual name of the movement is called “Marriage Equality,” which further underscores what Robert just elaborated on. These movements are every bit as active in states which have every single marital privilege without the term itself, as they are in states with non-recognized unions of any kind. They are also active in states which have the title – being that such residents travel outside their states to advocate, and/or advocate in various ways from within.
What would amuse me about it (if I found the effort amusing, which I don’t) is that it’s a clear attempt to mainstream the supposed “morality” of it – kind of funny since so many of these advocates disdain the very concept of a morality standard outside their own creation of that. (This is also known as hypocrisy.
)
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
What?
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
We can’t stop two consenting adults from engaging in sex in the privacy of their own homes. Big difference from your examples
S
sw85
Guest
We’re not. We’re simply saying the behavior doesn’t qualify for the endorsement of the state.
Marriage, after all, is the state getting involved in explicitly sexual relationships, specifically by establishing a legal framework within which the rights and duties attendant on procreation can be exercised. This is why I asked if you support repealing marriage law in its entirety – after all, we have to get the government out of people’s bedrooms, no?
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
There’s a difference between sex and the state recognizing the union between two people
E
exnihilo
Guest
I dont see how that makes a difference. Laws are not based on the idea that they must be able to stop the act. Murder is against the law but that does not stop people from doing it in the privacy of their own home. Furthermore what chemicals you use is controlling what people do in the privacy of their home. Drug laws are not only in force on the public streets they also apply to private property. So there is no difference in this and the examples.
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Here’s the difference; two individuals having sex is consensual. We don’t go after people for consenting to engage in sexual activity. Getting in someone’s private life is when there are people that can be directly harmed as a result. In cases pertaining to domestic abuse or murder, action can be taken to prosecute the agressor because someone is being abused directly.
What?
Since drugs are already illegal, it would make sense that it would be illegal in your own home.
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi,The most important opinion belongs to God ! Why folks separate politics from humanity and its Creator God, I will never know ? In fact does anyone really know,my guess it is spelled >>>> SATAN. No abominations allowed.
God Bless
E
exnihilo
Guest
Well now we have another standard, consensual. Besides drug users engaging in consensual activity we have prostitution, which is illegal even when consensual. So certainly the government does regulate consensual activity that occurs in private homes such as prostitution and drug use. I’m not sure how gay sex has the special privilege to be consensual private behavior that can not be regulated.
Drugs are chemicals. The government makes it illegal to use some chemicals in your home.
I’m completely unable to follow this reasoning. I could say ‘Since homosexuality is already illegal, it would make sense that it would be illegal in your own home’. I just changed one word. So what is special about homosexuality that allows it to escape this reasoning?
S
sw85
Guest
Again, no one’s talking about outlawing homosexual sex but merely not extending state recognition to homosexual unions.
We extend that recognition to heterosexual unions because heterosexual sex produces children, and the care and wellbeing of children is a matter of public interest. What is the public interest in recognizing homosexual unions?
If you think the government has no business in sexual matters, the logical conclusion would be to repeal marriage law entirely, not to expand it.
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
It’s two people engaging in sexual activity. I don’t even think recreational drugs should be in illegal in your home as a matter of fact
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Marriage is not a sexual matter
S
sw85
Guest
That’s such a flagrant perversion of all available evidence that it requires no specific refutation.
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Evidence? Really? What is this evidence you speak of?
S
sw85
Guest
Are you actually ignorant of the natural law basis for marriage? Because that seems like something they’d cover in RCIA / Sunday school.
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
I was born Catholic and never went to Sunday school, and you have not told me this evidence you speak of
S
sw85
Guest
I said that natural law furnishes the basis for marriage. Civil marriage is based on the same principle. If you were poorly catechized it stands to reason you’d be ignorant of it.
I recommend picking up Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition; you’ll get a better treatment of natural law philosophy than I could hope to relate here.
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Just saying “natural law” doesn’t prove a point. You need to justify your standpoint.
S
sw85
Guest
Oh, I get it. You’re not here to be enlightened, you just wanna argue. Fine, I’ll bite.
For everything that exists in nature, there exists a more perfect “form” or “essence” or “nature” in which it is said to “participate” or “instantiate.” For example, the essence of a triangle is to be a closed-plane shape consisting of three straight lines. Anything with this essence has a number of properties that follow logically from it, such as having three angles that sum to 180 degrees. It is possible for a thing to participate imperfectly in an essence; for instance, if I hastily scrawl a triangle on a sheet of paper on a bumpy surface with a worn-down crayon, it is likely to have non-straight lines and thus angles that sum to something other than 180 degrees. We would not say that such a shape is not a triangle, even though it clearly does not live up to that essence. We would simply say it’s a “bad” triangle.
The badness of the triangle is not an arbitrary judgment; it is an objective fact, arising from the nature of what a triangle is and what it means to be triangular. (The nature of the triangle is an objective fact, too; we didn’t make up the definition I provided above, we discovered it).
Man, too, has an essence. For instance, it’s appropriate for me to say “human beings have two legs.” Obviously I’m not talking about each and every human being alive. Rather, I’m talking about human beings in principle. We recognize that being born with only one leg is a birth defect for precisely that reason; it cannot be a defect unless it is a failure to instantiate the essence of something.
The same principle, applied to human behavior, furnishes a basis for morality. We have various faculties; these faculties point to an end; goodness therefore consists in using our faculties in a manner consistent with their respective ends, and evil in using them for some contrary purpose. For instance, we have reason; reason points toward the end of discerning truth; therefore it is good to discern truth and bad for us to, say, invent and disseminate falsehoods.
Our sexual faculty points to the end of procreation. We know this because the sexual act concludes with the emission of semen, and the emission of semen causes pregnancy. Humans have the distinct genital configuration they do because it maximizes the possibility of conception, and we have a strong sex drive so that we will have sex often and therefore maximize the possibility of conception, and it is very easy to get pregnant during a woman’s fertile period so as to maximize the possibility of conception, and so on. If our sexual faculty points to the end of procreation, and if goodness consists in using our faculties in a manner consistent with their respective ends, then it is good to have sex in a manner that is conducive to procreation and not good (evil, sinful, etc.) to have sex in a manner contrary to the end of procreation. Hence the Church’s prohibition on contraception, sodomy, masturbation, etc.
The sexual act points toward the end of procreation, but obviously procreation does not end at conception. The pregnant woman is vulnerable and in need of care, and her child, once born, will also be in need of care as well as instruction and proper upbringing. The sexual act therefore necessitates a measure of commitment and obligation. It is from this fact that the institution of marriage from a natural standpoint logically arises.
Civil marriage sprang up around the natural institution of marriage, for the same reason but for slightly different justifications. The state’s interest is not in promoting morality but in promoting the common good, specifically, the care and disposition of children. Thus civil marriage provides a legal framework within which couples can discharge their duty to one another and to the community by creating new life and ensuring that that new life is cared for.
Homosexual unions are intrinsically incapable of producing children and so are never a matter of public interest – hardly worthy of the endorsement of the state.
QED.
- Status