Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Suudy said:
But of course the left doesn’t really care about equal treatment under the law. They only care about equal outcome. For them, the ends justify the means. Just as in this particular case. Gays cannot marry whoever they love, and since the basis for the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage doesn’t achieve the equal outcome they want, they feel justified in changing the definition. The means (changing a philosophically, historically, and religiously grounded definition) are unimportant. All that matters is the end.
Click to expand...
The only constant in life is change. ― Heraclitus
 
frobert said:
👍 Adding the “requirement for children” would be a redefinition of marriage whether civil or religious.
Click to expand...
The tax code encouraged families, that much is so. That is a tangible product of marriages, new citizens. That can not be denied. If the Federal Government regulates whereas the States have in the past, I’m all for the States that are thinking of creating legislation whereas the States no longer issue Marriage licenses.
 
If anyone does a google search for “benefits from government for married couples”. You might see a link to an article I read recently, which lists 7, maybe it was 8 benefits. These are the benefits that would be left wide open if government allows gay marriage. This is what people should be looking at before even making an argument, because the government is not the church, and those who don’t go to church will need lists of reasons why the law would be wrong rather than repeating empty arguments that they can easily shut down. On the other hand, as much as government benefits are already abused these days, why don’t we take government benefits away from married couples completely, leave no law about marriage in the government, and instead just teach from our church like our constitution already let’s us?
 
ett said:
If anyone does a google search for “benefits from government for married couples”. You might see a link to an article I read recently, which lists 7, maybe it was 8 benefits. These are the benefits that would be left wide open if government allows gay marriage. This is what people should be looking at before even making an argument, because the government is not the church, and those who don’t go to church will need lists of reasons why the law would be wrong rather than repeating empty arguments that they can easily shut down. On the other hand, as much as government benefits are already abused these days, why don’t we take government benefits away from married couples completely, leave no law about marriage in the government, and instead just teach from our church like our constitution already let’s us?
Click to expand...
Benefits are not the only things that come with civil marriage. Responsibilities also come with marriage. It is the responsibilties that the government is most interested in. Of course, those responsibilities have been developed over the 200+ years to what they are today. While I agree the government should get out of the marriage business, it would take years of gradual adjustment to do so.
 
frobert said:
Again you failed to read what I wrote. I said much of what Thomas wrote is ok. Then I gave my opinion of virtue ethics which I believe is more credible than Thomas’ theories.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I did. You said that Aquinas was wrong on many things, including apparently his view on natural law. And now you try to claim that virtue ethics are more credible than Thomist ethics. On what basis I’m not sure, since virtue ethics is one of one of the legs on which Thomas builds his ethics. Like most things Thomas (and the Church) teach, it is a both/and relationship.
 
frobert said:
👍 Adding the “requirement for children” would be a redefinition of marriage whether civil or religious.
Click to expand...
There is not “requirement for children.” That’s not what is being said. What is being said is that the requirement that the relationship be ordered toward the creation of children, which has always been the case. There’s no change, it’s been that way for thousands of years.
 
ett said:
If anyone does a google search for “benefits from government for married couples”. You might see a link to an article I read recently, which lists 7, maybe it was 8 benefits. These are the benefits that would be left wide open if government allows gay marriage. This is what people should be looking at before even making an argument, because the government is not the church, and those who don’t go to church will need lists of reasons why the law would be wrong rather than repeating empty arguments that they can easily shut down. On the other hand, as much as government benefits are already abused these days, why don’t we take government benefits away from married couples completely, leave no law about marriage in the government, and instead just teach from our church like our constitution already let’s us?
Click to expand...
You give us no idea on the authority of the article you read and no references.

Why didn’t you go an authoritative source?

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

References:

gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf
 
Suudy said:
I don’t think I did. You said that Aquinas was wrong on many things, including apparently his view on natural law. And now you try to claim that virtue ethics are more credible than Thomist ethics. On what basis I’m not sure, since virtue ethics is one of one of the legs on which Thomas builds his ethics. Like most things Thomas (and the Church) teach, it is a both/and relationship.
Click to expand...
Thomas’ theories go beyond virtue ethics. I gave 2 examples of where he was wrong . I am not here to convince or change anyone’s beliefs but if you want you can easily look up what Thomas says about witches and heretics and come to your own conclusions.
 
frobert said:
Thomas’ theories go beyond virtue ethics. I gave 2 examples of where he was wrong . I am not here to convince or change anyone’s beliefs but if you want you can easily look up what Thomas says about witches and heretics and come to your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
Again, why bring up that he was wrong in some areas if not to disparage his views on natural law? What does any of that have to do with whether or not homosexual acts are disordered?
 
Suudy said:
Again, why bring up that he was wrong in some areas if not to disparage his views on natural law? What does any of that have to do with whether or not homosexual acts are disordered?
Click to expand...
You really need to read my posts even the ones that came before you chimed in. Another poster asked me why I do not believe St Thomas’ theories on natural law credible. I did not disparage St. Thomas, I simply stated my own beliefs when asked. Is it incredulous to you that not everyone shares your religious beliefs?
 
ett said:
If anyone does a google search for “benefits from government for married couples”. You might see a link to an article I read recently, which lists 7, maybe it was 8 benefits.
Click to expand...
frobert said:
According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.
​
Click to expand...

This is where the argument based on the 14th amendment comes into play. If there is equal protection under the law for heterosexuals and homosexuals, then should SS couples enjoy the same benefits from gov’t for married couples as do heterosexual couples. For the gov’t I don’t think it is a matter of theology, but they are looking at it from a legal standpoint according to which the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all.​
 
Tomdstone said:
This is where the argument based on the 14th amendment comes into play. If there is equal protection under the law for heterosexuals and homosexuals, then should SS couples enjoy the same benefits from gov’t for married couples as do heterosexual couples. For the gov’t I don’t think it is a matter of theology, but they are looking at it from a legal standpoint according to which the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all.
Click to expand...
The question is should sexual behavior have the same protected status as race, creed, gender and country of national origin? In a sane world of course not. but in our culture sexual behavior seems to trump everything else.
 
Tomdstone said:
This is where the argument based on the 14th amendment comes into play. If there is equal protection under the law for heterosexuals and homosexuals, then should SS couples enjoy the same benefits from gov’t for married couples as do heterosexual couples. For the gov’t I don’t think it is a matter of theology, but they are looking at it from a legal standpoint according to which the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all.
Click to expand...
The 14th amendment doesn’t guarantee equal protection under the law in all cases. There are exceptions as with all of the amendments. Marriage laws will always exclude some people. No one may marry a close relative, for rational reasons, nor can they be married to more than one person for rational reasons. Reserving marriage to opposite sex couples used to be rational as well.
 
Dawnia said:
The 14th amendment doesn’t guarantee equal protection under the law in all cases. There are exceptions as with all of the amendments. Marriage laws will always exclude some people. No one may marry a close relative, for rational reasons, nor can they be married to more than one person for rational reasons. Reserving marriage to opposite sex couples used to be rational as well.
Click to expand...
Interesting argument. Should there be equal protection under the law for polygamists? Today they don’t give that equal protection to polygamists.
 
Tomdstone said:
Interesting argument. Should there be equal protection under the law for polygamists? Today they don’t give that equal protection to polygamists.
Click to expand...
I think the issue brings up a lot of unanswered questions with the potential for many many unintended consequences. If biological differences aren’t a rational reason for drawing a line, then how are any of the other lines rational.
 
Dawnia said:
I think the issue brings up a lot of unanswered questions with the potential for many many unintended consequences. If biological differences aren’t a rational reason for drawing a line, then how are any of the other lines rational.
Click to expand...
Yes. You got me on that one. You are right. There are well recognized limits on equal protection of the law in effect today. So whether the equal protection clause should be extended in this case to the SS situation is simply a matter of opinion and not a clearcut constitutional right.
 
Tomdstone said:
This is where the argument based on the 14th amendment comes into play. If there is equal protection under the law for heterosexuals and homosexuals, then should SS couples enjoy the same benefits from gov’t for married couples as do heterosexual couples. For the gov’t I don’t think it is a matter of theology, but they are looking at it from a legal standpoint according to which the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all.
Click to expand...
Please read what I wrote. I did not imply any rights in posting a link to the tax benefits married couples receive. From what I have read there is no Constitutional right to for any marriage, gay or straight. The Supreme Court will soon rule on whether or not gay marriage is a civil right. All we can do is to speculate how they will rule.
 
estesbob said:
The question is should sexual behavior have the same protected status as race, creed, gender and country of national origin? In a sane world of course not. but in our culture sexual behavior seems to trump everything else.
Click to expand...
Please… At best you are being disingenuous. You know very well that that what is before the Supreme Court is about civil rights for same sex oriented people and not about sex. Can you give one legitimate legal source saying it is all about sex? Even your Church admits orientation is not about sex and that it does not understand or know what causes same sex orientations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top