So is it impossible to argue against same-sex marriage?

[Fitswimmer]

“This is the way we’ve always done it because God told us how” would not be valid?

Not in secular US law, no. That would be an establishment of religion.

Now, I said this on the other thread and I’ll say it again here. My apologies for repeating to others reading both threads, but I feel it is important.

Let me make this clear-before someone has me kicked out of the Church. I am in NO WAY saying that the Church is incorrect. I am in NO WAY saying that the Church should recognize gay marriage. I am in NO WAY saying that Catholics need to support gay marriage or homosexual activity in any way, or that Catholics and other Christians who believe that it is sinful cannot address that point.

I’m dealing purely with secular, civil, non-religious arguments. If we cannot defend our position in those terms, then we need to acknowledge that. It doesn’t weaken the Church to acknowledge that the civil position differs. The Church is a higher authority than man’s government-which is why Jesus did not involve himself with man’s government. As Catholics we are called to obey God’s law first. If something is against God’s law, whether it is legal according to civil law is immaterial.

 

[Jennifer123]

Not in secular US law, no. That would be an establishment of religion.

Now, I said this on the other thread and I’ll say it again here. My apologies for repeating to others reading both threads, but I feel it is important.

Let me make this clear-before someone has me kicked out of the Church. I am in NO WAY saying that the Church is incorrect. I am in NO WAY saying that the Church should recognize gay marriage. I am in NO WAY saying that Catholics need to support gay marriage or homosexual activity in any way, or that Catholics and other Christians who believe that it is sinful cannot address that point.

I’m dealing purely with secular, civil, non-religious arguments. If we cannot defend our position in those terms, then we need to acknowledge that. It doesn’t weaken the Church to acknowledge that the civil position differs. The Church is a higher authority than man’s government-which is why Jesus did not involve himself with man’s government. As Catholics we are called to obey God’s law first. If something is against God’s law, whether it is legal according to civil law is immaterial.

I understand where you are coming from but it was my understanding as well that you were trying to make a secular argument from a perspective of what the marriage contract is about - children. So how does gay marriage fulfill that aspect of marriage?

 

[Fitswimmer]

That isn’t completely true about marriage and children, but it certainly is a hearty component of the marriage contract. But let’s discuss the sake of the children. How does gay marriage fulfill that aspect?

In a Catholic sense, it can’t. In some state law, and in some other religious traditions, gay couples who have either had children through artifical means, adopted children or have children from former marriages are treated no differently than other families.

 

[Jennifer123]

In a Catholic sense, it can’t. In some state law, and in some other religious traditions, gay couples who have either had children through artifical means, adopted children or have children from former marriages are treated no differently than other families.

But they are different than other traditional families. They are a family where the parents are of the same gender. There are objective studies which suggest that children are harmed by this arrangement.
If marriage is based on what is good for society by supporting children, how can gay marriage fulfill that social contract?

 

[JimG]

Speaking of an establishment of religion, isn’t a civil state-supported school system which supports and inculcates only the secularist worldview an ‘establishment of religion?’ It seems to be the closest thing I’ve seen to an establishment of religion.

Recall that Catholic schools were established because the public schools essentially taught protestantism. Now, they no longer teach protestantism, but they do teach secularism as the only acceptable value system.

 

[Fitswimmer]

But they are different than other traditional families. They are a family where the parents are of the same gender. There are objective studies which suggest that children are harmed by this arrangement.
If marriage is based on what is good for society by supporting children, how can gay marriage fulfill that social contract?

There is objective evidence that children are harmed by divorce, children are harmed by parental indifference, children are harmed by overworked parents, children are harmed by parents who have to move frequently for their jobs, children are harmed by military parents being sent overseas…do we make all those things illegal or punish parents by taking away marriage benefits if they do those things?

Our society has many “different” families. We have children being raised by grandparents, children being raised by single parents, children being raised by older siblings…should we only confer benefits on families who have a traditional structure?

 

[buffalo]

Speaking of an establishment of religion, isn’t a civil state-supported school system which supports and inculcates only the secularist worldview an ‘establishment of religion?’ It seems to be the closest thing I’ve seen to an establishment of religion.

Recall that Catholic schools were established because the public schools essentially taught protestantism. Now, they no longer teach protestantism, but they do teach secularism as the only acceptable value system.

Right on! And the state run school indoctrinization homoginezation religion no competition system is a violation.

 

[buffalo]

In a Catholic sense, it can’t. In some state law, and in some other religious traditions, gay couples who have either had children through artifical means, adopted children or have children from former marriages are treated no differently than other families.

Natural law - one male one female
All civilizations - one male one female
Thousands of years - one male one female

God’s law - one male one female
Catholic law - one male and one female

One male and one male - not a family
One female and one female - not a family

 

[Fitswimmer]

Speaking of an establishment of religion, isn’t a civil state-supported school system which supports and inculcates only the secularist worldview an ‘establishment of religion?’ It seems to be the closest thing I’ve seen to an establishment of religion.

Recall that Catholic schools were established because the public schools essentially taught protestantism. Now, they no longer teach protestantism, but they do teach secularism as the only acceptable value system.

And parents are free to send their children to whatever religious school they please. There’s no law against it.

 

[buffalo]

There is objective evidence that children are harmed by divorce, children are harmed by parental indifference, children are harmed by overworked parents, children are harmed by parents who have to move frequently for their jobs, children are harmed by military parents being sent overseas…do we make all those things illegal or punish parents by taking away marriage benefits if they do those things?

Our society has many “different” families. We have children being raised by grandparents, children being raised by single parents, children being raised by older siblings…should we only confer benefits on families who have a traditional structure?

Yes, until recently for the good of the family and children divorce was very difficult to get. Our modern wisdom brought us no-fault (bail-out) divorce. That is not good for the family, kids or society.

Many of the others you cite are because of the collapse of family.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Natural law - one male one female
All civilizations - one male one female
Thousands of years - one male one female

God’s law - one male one female
Catholic law - one male and one female

One male and one male - not a family
One female and one female - not a family

you’re back to “that’s the way we’ve always done it becuase God says so”. The same arguments were used to uphold slavery, uphold bans on interracial marriage, deny women the right to vote and keep black and white children in separate schools. Just because we’ve always done it, and just because God says so doesn’t make it right according to civil law.

 

[buffalo]

And parents are free to send their children to whatever religious school they please. There’s no law against it.

California has recently enacted laws against home-schooling.

Parents can send their kids to religious schoolsif they can afford it. However, the secular public union ivory tower system has systematically gutted the private system. Believe me, this was by design.

Now an act of good faith to protect this right would be for the government to allow my school tax dollars to be put where I wish.

 

[buffalo]

you’re back to “that’s the way we’ve always done it becuase God says so”. The same arguments were used to uphold slavery, uphold bans on interracial marriage, deny women the right to vote and keep black and white children in separate schools. Just because we’ve always done it, and just because God says so doesn’t make it right according to civil law.

Where did God say slavery was a commandment. Go forth and get slaves?

I know nothing of God prohibiting interracial marriages or segregation.

II know nothing of a commandment ordering us to deny women the right to vote.

I do know that God created them male and female and one of His first commandments was marriage and children. I see this in natural law and affirmed by God’s law. That positive first example is important and has been foundational since the beginning. Now by what authority does man have to declare it null and void?

For your argument to be valid we would need to see male and female and ??? He created them.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Where did God say slavery was a commandment. Go forth and get slaves?

I know nothing of God prohibiting interracial marriages or segregation.

II know nothing of a commandment ordering us to deny women the right to vote.

I do know that God created them male and female and one of His first commandments was marriage and children. I see this in natural law and affirmed by God’s law. That positive first example is important and has been foundational since the beginning. Now by what authority does man have to declare it null and void?

For your argument to be valid we would need to see male and female and ??? He created them.

If you read the history of those movements, you will find the scriptures used to support the status quo for every one of those positions. Slavery was defended by the numerous references in both the Old and New Testament regarding the treatment of slaves, keeping women from voting was defended using the sections of the NT about women not being allowed to teach in Church…I’m not saying they were valid arguments-just that the Bible and religion have been used over and over again to defend the idea that “this is the way it has always been”

If you believe in God as taught in the Catholic church and other faiths that condemn homosexuality as sinful, then man has no right. If you are basing your argument in civil law, then man has every right, because civil law is man made.

 

[buffalo]

If you are basing your argument in civil law, then man has every right, because civil law is man made.

That is exactly the point - man does not have the right. He is not his own creator. Religious or not no man can argue that.

Laws are not made in a vaccum. Civil laws have been derived from natural and Divine law. Even though man may articulate and enforce them in the end they do come from God. Sometimes, man misinterprets or ignores them and then we end up with bad civil laws which the moral laws trumps every time.

 

[JimG]

And parents are free to send their children to whatever religious school they please. There’s no law against it.

Quite right, with, as noted, the possible exception of homeschooling.

The difference is that the public religion is subsidized.

To avoid establishing a state religion in schools, any federal or state money for education should go to students, not particular schools. That would level the playing field.

 

[Fitswimmer]

That is exactly the point - man does not have the right. He is not his own creator. Religious or not no man can argue that.

Laws are not made in a vaccum. Civil laws have been derived from natural and Divine law. Even though man may articulate and enforce them in the end they do come from God. Sometimes, man misinterprets or ignores them and then we end up with bad civil laws which the moral laws trumps every time.

Our civil laws often do agree with religious traditions because religious rules governing how we treat others are very common across many faiths. That does not mean that these laws are divined from any particular, individual faith. The Catholic, the Protestant, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist and the pagan or athiest Americans can all agree on the benefits of those laws. The rules on homosexual conduct are very specific to individual faiths-Catholicism and Evangelical Chrisitanity being the most vocal opponents. Adopting such a law would be an endorsement of the belief systems of those specific faiths in exclusion of others who do not believe that homosexual conduct is a sin.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Quite right, with, as noted, the possible exception of homeschooling.

The difference is that the public religion is subsidized.

To avoid establishing a state religion in schools, any federal or state money for education should go to students, not particular schools. That would level the playing field.

No argument there-I never thought it was fair that my parents had to pay taxes for the public schools in town even though I never set a foot in them.

 

[buffalo]

Our civil laws often do agree with religious traditions because religious rules governing how we treat others are very common across many faiths. That does not mean that these laws are divined from any particular, individual faith. The Catholic, the Protestant, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist and the pagan or athiest Americans can all agree on the benefits of those laws. The rules on homosexual conduct are very specific to individual faiths-Catholicism and Evangelical Chrisitanity being the most vocal opponents. Adopting such a law would be an endorsement of the belief systems of those specific faiths in exclusion of others who do not believe that homosexual conduct is a sin.

Then we need to drop all the laws that endorse any belief system except the secular one.

recommended reading - What Civilization Owes to the Church

.How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Natural law - one male one female
All civilizations - one male one female
Thousands of years - one male one female

God’s law - one male one female
Catholic law - one male and one female

One male and one male - not a family
One female and one female - not a family

It’s a testament to the evil afoot in our times that this even has to be stated. If God rains down fire upon us, it’s our fault for being weak in the face of such evil.

Tolerance of evil is a choice to support evil.