F
Freddy
Guest
It didn’t affect me in any way. And I literally don’t know anyone personally who thinks it affected them either. Especially in a negative sense. Could you give me an example of how it affected you?
- Status
blackforest
Well-known member
I think you’re confusing objective truth with what should be public policy. I’m a Catholic based on objective truth, but I’m not demanding a theocracy requiring everyone to be Catholic. Objective truth impels me to take my marriage seriously as a sacrament and remain faithful to my husband, but it does not mean that criminalizing adultery is a sound public policy. Not all objective truths can or should take the form of public policy measures, and it is unwise to make all sin, as defined by the Catholic Church, illegal.
How does a gay or lesbian married couple affect you?
The slippery slope is called a fallacy for a reason. Let’s examine why your examples wouldn’t apply.
I support legalizing polygamy or polyandry. If someone is stupid enough to engage in such an arrangement, the state shouldn’t step in. Your examples of marrying relatives have public health implications, so a reasonable case could be made for keeping them illegal. Child marriage could stay illegal on the grounds that somebody needs to be able to provide full, informed consent, something children are unable to do.
The woman who married herself is a silly example, an attention-grabbing stunt, and, by the article’s own admission, something not even recognized by law.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
This is my issue. Why stop at LGBT marriage? Why not outlaw adultery, divorce, and premarital sex?
P
Polak
Guest
You’re not a good psychiatrist. I’m not experiencing any ‘mild frustration’ and my question was valid because the president does have a say on whether laws become laws or they don’t, hence why they are the president, otherwise, as I said, what would be their purpose?
M
MtnDwellar
Guest
What was wrong with gay civil unions? Why did we need to redefine marriage?
P
Polak
Guest
Semantics. Whatever reasoning they gave, whatever phrasing was used and whatever actions they ‘officially’ took to change the law, bottom line is, they overturned state laws. Funny, they didn’t seem to have a problem with these laws being unconstitutional before, when State after State was legalising gay marriage. People kept talking about how there were just a few States to go and indirectly pressuring them to do legalise gay marriage too. When it became clear that some of the States would not overturn their laws, they deemed it unconstitutional.
P
PetraG
Guest
If we had the ability to trace outbreaks, things could have been much different. The ideal would of course have been much less wide-ranging restrictions.
Considering the seriousness of the inflammatory syndrome that can follow a COVID-19 infection in children, we may be relieved in retrospect to have closed schools even though children did not seem to be particularly vulnerable. (Pediatricians quit giving them aspirin for a fever for a reason that’s no greater. Permanent organ damage is a big deal.)
Considering the seriousness of the inflammatory syndrome that can follow a COVID-19 infection in children, we may be relieved in retrospect to have closed schools even though children did not seem to be particularly vulnerable. (Pediatricians quit giving them aspirin for a fever for a reason that’s no greater. Permanent organ damage is a big deal.)
P
PetraG
Guest
Our governor is entirely within her statutory and constitutional powers. Yours, well, I couldn’t say.
W
whatistrue
Guest
You say that as if it is unimportant. Semantics is very important when talking about law. And yes, they overturned State laws; where did you get the idea that I said otherwise, especially when I explicitly said that laws were struck down.
blackforest
Well-known member
Marriage has been redefined multiple times throughout history. Polygamy was once legal. Interracial marriage was once illegal. Those are just two examples.
I’ve always wondered that, too.
This is a serious question. How does it affect you?
I don’t see how the same-sex couple down the street are going to destroy your marriage or your family.
I could maybe see it if same-sex attraction were a choice. Then there might be the possibility that a man married to a woman might say to his wife, “You know, this same-sex marriage stuff sounds like a lot of fun. I think I’ll divorce you and go off and marry a man!” But it doesn’t work that way.
Honestly I’m so sick of the “child marriage” argument (or the “dog marriage” argument).
It’s counterproductive; it just makes the person making the argument look like they don’t know a child or dog can’t consent.
P
Polak
Guest
They didn’t enact a law but they overturned a current law. Dictators do the same.
Example of something a dictator would do
Law says you can’t be president for more than two terms
Dictator wants to be a dictator (unsurprisingly) and rule forever, so overturns this law, deeming it unconstitutional or whatever other reason they deem appropropriate.
Example of something a dictator would do
Law says you can’t be president for more than two terms
Dictator wants to be a dictator (unsurprisingly) and rule forever, so overturns this law, deeming it unconstitutional or whatever other reason they deem appropropriate.
Last edited:
So that they can qualify for a number of benefits under federal law, such as Social Security, tax benefits, and veterans’ benefits.
W
whatistrue
Guest
You can’t declare something in the Constitution unconstitutional. The restriction on the President being elected more than twice is in the 22d Amendment; it is not just a law.
The reason we have three branches of government at the Federal level is precisely to avoid a dictatorship; each branch provides checks against the possibility of unrestricted power of the others, hence no dictatorship. Now if some power-mad person decided to take over or remain in power against the Constitution, then we are dealing with a different situation.
B
Buks
Guest
You probably didn’t mean it this way, but as it is worded, you answer that we needed to redefine it because it was redefined in the past.MtnDwellar:
Marriage has been redefined multiple times throughout history. Polygamy was once legal. Interracial marriage was once illegal. Those are just two examples.
P
Polak
Guest
If a law can be changed, if marriage can be redefined, why is the American constitution treated like the holy grail? Why can’t it be amended, again, since it already has amendments? Was there a time limit on when amendments were allowed and after that passed, no more amendments can be made again, ever?
The American constitution was written a long time ago by some men. It wasn’t drafted by bishops under the inspiration of the holy spirit.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There are multiple questions here, not just one. They all deserve separate answers.
- The question of objective truth. The truth is that the nature of man is to be either man or woman, and that each sex plays a complementary but different role in reproduction.
- The question of the role of social marriage in reproduction. This is a matter of faith and of culture. The Christian faith, as with most other faiths, and most cultures around the world, assign a preferential role to social marriage as facilitating reproduction according to the nature of man and woman. However it is also true that social marriage has been assigned other lesser purposes, such as companionship, that have nothing to do with reproduction. In some circumstances, such as marriages of much older people, the role of reproduction is entirely absent.
- The question of what to do about points #1 and #2. There are good reasons for preferring a society in which marriage in its primary natural role is celebrated. Therefore it is proper to take certain steps to encourage such a society and discourage the degradation of this valuable institution. But it is also proper to balance that need with the individual liberties of those who are inclined to unnatural interpretations of marriage. This is not a question that can be answered with broad generality or easily. It takes a case-by-case analysis and many levels of response that cannot be addressed adequately in a forum posting. For example, there was a time when the mere fact of two men living together and engaging in contact in private was cause for criminal prosecution and sometimes forced chemical castration. Even though such actions can be seen as promoting the integrity of the institution of marriage, most people today agree the cost is too high for what it achieves. On the other hand, proactively celebrating same-sex unions to the point of requiring elementary schools to teach it as a choice co-equal with natural marriage most people agree is leaning too far in the other direction.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
In the US, adultery and premarital sex have been illegal in some places in the past!
G
Genesis315
Guest
Public authority does not have the authority to violate the moral law (since all authority comes from God). It can tolerate evils for a greater good (as God does) but not actively promote or encourage them or make them public institutions.
CCC
CCC
CCC
One of the functions of public authority in its service to the common good is a proper guardianship of public morality. The nature of the family is an important part of this:
CCC
From the Catholic perspective, religious liberty does not justify public immorality. Vatican II’s decree on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, specifically says one reason why public authority can limit such liberty is “out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.” See also CCC 2109.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
It’s not. It is treated as the foundational document of the United States of America, which enumerates the structure and powers of the Government of the United States, and also specifies certain things that the Federal and/or State Governments cannot do.
It can be, and has been 27 times, the most recent final ratification occurring on May 5, 1992. The process for doing so is laid out in Article Five of the Constitution itself.
- Status