Should Catholic leaders make gay marriage illegal?

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

It was a horrible experience for the people on the receiving end of the lawsuit.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

This is the third or fourth time this question has been asked. Be nice to get an answer from someone.

Asked and answered.

No it wasn’t. You simply complained about the definition. So what specific detrimental effect has it had on you?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Are you telling me that if we called it something else then said baker would be happy writing ‘A lifetime of happiness to Dave and Pete’ in icing? Are you honestly suggesting the baker is arguing over semantics ?

I’m replying to your assertion that “nobody else” is affected by state recognition of same sex marriage.

 

[neophyte]

So apparently the answer is that it forces you to be “complicit in a lie.”

What’s apparent is that you aren’t responding to what I said.

It’s a pattern I don’t expect will change. I see no reason to continue here.

 

[Freddy]

For a Christian “Why is this objectionable apart from your beliefs?” is a kind of silly question. There are natural evils connected with it, yes, but the moral evils are our primary concern. Religious reasons are concrete reasons, you just don’t agree with them. You shouldn’t be surprised at Catholics’ worldview being religious. You seem to want Catholics to set aside Catholicism and argue on a materialistic level. Why would they?

Because you are arguing for a situation where those who are Catholics, especially just those who are against gay marriage, are in a significant minority. Simply saying ‘this is what I believe’ cuts no ice with me if what you believe has an impact on society as a whole. You have to justify why you want a situation to prevail. And yes, you are going to need reasons. And yes, they will need to be secular reasons as well.

I fully support everyone’s right to their own beliefs. And if there are reasonable arguments to be had to support that your beliefs should hold sway within society then I’ll support you. But I need to know what they are. Simply saying ‘They’re Catholic beliefs’ in this context is meaningless.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are you telling me that if we called it something else then said baker would be happy writing ‘A lifetime of happiness to Dave and Pete’ in icing? Are you honestly suggesting the baker is arguing over semantics ?

I’m replying to your assertion that “nobody else” is affected by state recognition of same sex marriage.

But that’s simply an example of someone objecting to the concept. That Dave and Pete get married has zero impact on the baker and his marriage. None whatsoever. But if he wants to make a stand and personally object to it, then that’s a matter of his choosing.

People have said it impacts them negatively. Specifically their marriages. I want to know how. It’s been said enough times. Surely it can’t be difficult to answer.

 

[sealabeag]

Whether it cuts ice with you isn’t really our concern. Arguing from a moral standpoint is not irrelevant, even if that morality is not accepted by society at large.
Your statement “and yes they will need to be secular reasons as well” illustrates the fundamental conflict. You want us to argue on your level. Why should we? There’s a lot more I was going to say here but it’s way too late and it will be incoherent lol. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[Freddy]

signit:

So apparently the answer is that it forces you to be “complicit in a lie.”

What’s apparent is that you aren’t responding to what I said.

It’s a pattern I don’t expect will change. I see no reason to continue here.

I’d rather you didn’t bail out, Neophyte. I’d prefer that you’d stick around and explain your position further.

 

[Freddy]

Whether it cuts ice with you isn’t really our concern. Arguing from a moral standpoint is not irrelevant, even if that morality is not accepted by society at large.
Your statement “and yes they will need to be secular reasons as well” illustrates the fundamental conflict. You want us to argue on your level. Why should we? There’s a lot more I was going to say here but it’s way too late and it will be incoherent lol. Maybe tomorrow.

But arguing a moral position without giving reasons for holding to that position is literally meaningless. It would be like arguing that no-one should eat pork. That’s a religious position but there are zero reasons why it should be made a societal norm.

All moral positions must be based on reason. Otherwise I am entirely justified in completely ignoring them. Just as you should ignore any of my beliefs if I can’t give you a reason for you to hold to them.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

But that’s simply an example of someone objecting to the concept. That Dave and Pete get married has zero impact on the baker and his marriage. None whatsoever. But if he wants to make a stand and personally object to it, then that’s a matter of his choosing.

No, I’m talking about using the force of law to punish all disagreement.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But that’s simply an example of someone objecting to the concept. That Dave and Pete get married has zero impact on the baker and his marriage. None whatsoever. But if he wants to make a stand and personally object to it, then that’s a matter of his choosing.

No, I’m talking about using the force of law to punish all disagreement.

Nobody is going to punish anyone for simply disagreeing. If someone wants to break any given law to make a point then good for them. I admire their commitment to their beliefs. But that’s not what we’re talking about and I’d appreciate us staying on point.

It’s been said that gay marriage affects all other marriages negatively. I want to know how.

 

[sealabeag]

It directly impacting other individual marriages is really not something most Catholics are raising as an issue, but if that’s something you want to focus on, have at it.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Nobody is going to punish anyone for simply disagreeing.

You made an assertion.
I corrected it.
Now you’re doubling down on your wrong assertion.

Whatever. I’m done.

 

[rosejmj]

If a person should be allowed to marry “whoever they love”, what happens if they love their parent, their sibling, or a child? Or themselves, like this woman did?

It’s completely different to marry someone of the same sex than to marry a child. A child doesn’t have the ability to consent the way an adult does. Incest is also much more different. It’s saying you are only attracted to this person in your family… versus, I’m sexually and romantically attracted to one sex or the other sex(which encompasses a big part of the human population versus the few people in your family)

 

[JimG]

Calling same sex unions “marriage” implies that they are the same thing as actual marriage. But they are not. It is as though the medical establishment decreed that medical students, interns, RN’s, LPN’s, naturopaths, midwives, and pharmacists will henceforth all be called “Medical Doctors.” Would the real MD’s object?

 

[Freddy]

It directly impacting other individual marriages is really not something most Catholics are raising as an issue, but if that’s something you want to focus on, have at it.

It has been raised:

But completely altering the meaning of what constitutes “marriage” and “family” does affect me, and everyone else in society, and not necessarily for the better.

And here:

It’s patently obvious that when a government codifies that things are what they in reality are not, everyone is affected.

And a few requests have been made for examples. All we’ve received so far are arguments based on semantics: ‘It isn’t ‘marriage’’, ‘It’s not how we define it’ etc.

Either someone puts forward some concrete examples of how it affects everyone’s marriages or we must assume that there are none.

 

[AlNg]

And why limit yourself to one spouse, considering that polygamy was the norm for most cultures prior to the rise of the Roman Empire

That is a good point. If Roman Catholic politicians go along with SS marriage, then why not go along with polygamy? I am assuming that the polygamous relationship is completely voluntary and consensual on the part of those involved.

So the question is entirely relevant.

Yes it is. Although a Catholic congressman or President is not a dictator, still she can promote or support laws against SS marriage, abortion, etc.

whether US states voted for or against gay marriage, the Supreme Court decided it didn’t care and just made it legal in the country as a whole anyway. This isn’t a dictatorship? Some US States having a law imposed on them that they don’t want.

Of course you are right. Laws are imposed on us against our will all the time. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human rights guarantees the right of assembly, but the American politicians or judges, or whoever is in charge, has taken this right away from us.

 

[phil19034]

I believe it would be wrong for a Catholic to legalize gay marriage.

However, once something is already legal, it becomes a lot harder to make it illegal.

I’ve never seen a poll on this, but I’m 99% confident that a politician would have far less than 50% support to make gay marriage illegal.

So in a democratic republic like the United States, such a politician would never receive the support needed change such a law.

The reason why this argument is much different from abortion is two fold:

1. Abortion is a greater evil
2. The majority of people already consider abortion has a bad/tragic thing (if not an evil thing).

In other words, enough political will to outlaw abortion exists. While outlawing gay marriage is like outlawing birth control. The political support to outlaw these simply does not exist in great enough numbers.

 

[ImQuiet]

Either someone puts forward some concrete examples of how it affects everyone’s marriages or we must assume that there are none.

Good luck getting someone to do so.

 

[buffalo]

However, once something is already legal, it becomes a lot harder to make it illegal.

You can ignore it and not acknowledge this fallacy.