The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Oreoracle]

There is alevwl of entanglement there the minute you name religious authorities as state officers (granted I have never understood why the US who claims full separation of church and state does this because this is a clear entanglement and this is the reason why in most countries that is forbidden).

I agree that the roles of priests as marrying both in the legal sense and the religious sense shouldn’t be conflated as they are. Perhaps it would ease tension on both sides if there were a more apparent division between religious and civil marriage. Or maybe some would perceive it as an attack in the short run if a division were attempted, it’s hard to say.

On your other point, again as the article say states don’t do anything out of love or the kindness or the heart. Every state action has either an economical or political motive. Sales of alcohol are not criminalized because it brings $$$$$ alcohol sales and from a purely economic standpoint banning alcohol is not a good idea. Now they want to control so the way to balance the economical impact is by taxing. Alcohol taxes are high because of this. Benefits, taxes, licenses are all ways of the government to control to a certain extent what they want to happen frequently and what they don’t. Governments are much more cynical than what people think.

I agree. I think there are things that heterosexual marriages do for society that need to be encouraged with incentives. I think there are similar benefits for same-sex marriages. I would be more than happy to concede that, if a straight marriage results in procreation, the couple should be compensated financially for it. But same-sex couples should be compensated for their benefits to society as well. There are more benefits to marriage than the rearing of children, after all, most of which pertain to the pooling of resources and acquisition of property. These apply to both kinds of marriage. (As people on other threads have pointed out before, these could take place even among non-couples, such as siblings, so perhaps the government needs a mechanism for encouraging mutually beneficial partnerships apart from marriage.)

If you’re going to say there are any universal moral norms at all, you have to say that some word distinctions matter, since these distinctions enable people to understand and obey the norms.

But again, we’re back to the problem of whether beliefs influence languages, languages influence beliefs, or the whole thing results from other linguistic difficulties. This reminds me of a scene in Game of Thrones. Two characters are listing all of the names for various kinds of murder, particularly those that are based on the murderer’s blood relation to the victim. One of them points out that there is no name for the murder of a cousin.

That is an interesting bit of information, but would we seriously conclude that a society lacking such a word cares less about those murders? It seems more likely that such a word would just not be informative enough to merit existence, since the cousin relationship is vague. So it’s more a matter of utility than the degree to which we care about what is being named.

 

[KP3243]

We would not have government in the bedroom if legislators did not believe it is their duty to control our reproductive lives. It’s not the business of any government to oversee what goes on in the bedroom of any couple, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc., nor is it their task to enact laws which reflect their own religions leanings and expect the whole of the citizenry to obey these laws.

The Catholic Church, by the way, has a permanent seat in the bedrooms of every single Catholic couple or mixed marriage couple who comes close enough to it. I find that equally offensive. There is no freedom of self-expression for many people under these kinds of Catholic prohibitions and proscriptions.

Additionally, children do NOT deserve a mom and/or a dad who is a drunk, a pedophile, a thief, a drug dealer or user, a murderer, a rapist, an arsonist, or a perpetrator of any kind. Mom and Dad are not always what we would wish them to be.

You didn’t invent sex, God did and when you play by His rules for it you find happiness.

 

[KP3243]

1. I have not claimed to be “forced” to follow the tenets of Catholicism. However, once a Catholic, always a Catholic, according to Catholicism. In other words, if a person falls away from Catholicism and, say, gets married in a civil ceremony and does not get married in a Church-sanctioned ritual, he or she is committing a sin, even though the bride or groom no longer subscribes to Catholicism. This is what I mean by not being able to wash it off, if you will.
2. I expect people to mind their own business. If I choose to share an experience, an action, a thought or idea with someone, I will, on my own timetable. Human beings do not have the authority to judge the actions of others. They may observe behaviors or attitudes, they may have visceral reactions to them, they may even mouth off about them, but they just don’t have the credentials to judge. It is not their job to judge. If someone is offended or fearful about another’s actions, he can call law enforcement or a therapist or a clergy person or a friend, he can even pray or cry or worry, but he cannot judge. It is not his place to do so. ** It has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with “getting away with something”.** I hope I’ve made my lexicon understandable to you.

Go ahead and cast that first stone, marymary1975. Be the first, the one, the only full human ever to have been conceived, and born, with nary a stain of sin.

I think you better re-read or read the Bible, we are not allowed to judge other people’s salvation that only belongs to God we are however commanded out of Christian charity to point out cases of sin for people who may have fallen Into sin. Jesus tells everyone to cast the first stone and everyone drops their stones but Jesus did not just tell the woman to run along, he told her to go and sin no more. Sin is not only a serious offense to God, it is an offense to everyone else. Someone who sleeps around with different men or women uses them in a utilitarian way. Women who wear postage stamp size tops or bottoms and skin tight clothes sin against all men or in God’s eyes their brothers who are in their path while she is wearing that. And any man that lets his mind run with inappropriate thoughts that may come in his head objectifies the woman or his sister. Sin is not a small matter and it effects not just you. Also, getting married in Church is a direct benefit to the couple, Jesus raised marriage to a sacrament and you get to participate in the divine life of our Lord as the eternal bridegroom and are given special graces by our Lord as a result. What the Church defines marriage to be is impossible for a human to live up to that is why Our Lord gives extraordinary graces to couples in marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But again, we’re back to the problem of whether beliefs influence languages, languages influence beliefs, or the whole thing results from other linguistic difficulties. This reminds me of a scene in Game of Thrones. Two characters are listing all of the names for various kinds of murder, particularly those that are based on the murderer’s blood relation to the victim. One of them points out that there is no name for the murder of a cousin.

That is an interesting bit of information, but would we seriously conclude that a society lacking such a word cares less about those murders? It seems more likely that such a word would just not be informative enough to merit existence, since the cousin relationship is vague. So it’s more a matter of utility than the degree to which we care about what is being named.

So the cousin-murder word isn’t needed. It doesn’t follow that the word “murder” isn’t needed.

You give me an absolute moral norm, I’ll give you a concept that is needed cross-culturally.

 

[KP3243]

A right is not a duty to attempt to sway people to one side or the other.

You are, unfortunately, correct when you imply that reproductive rights are becoming less and less protected by the Constitution. But since 1973 they have been protected by the Constitution and are, to a more limited degree, still protected today, so don’t gloat yet.

After all, what do women need reproductive rights for? How self-centered. How whimsical. How ludicrous.

sex without consequences that reduce humans to mere objects of their partner’s pleasure does not make women happier and marriages where natural family planning takes place have a 98% success rate. So it looks like the Church is right about mutual self giving of spouses.

 

[KP3243]

So the cousin-murder word isn’t needed. It doesn’t follow that the word “murder” isn’t needed.

You give me an absolute moral norm, I’ll give you a concept that is needed cross-culturally.

The Game of Thrones isn’t reality, it’s a TV show.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Game of Thrones isn’t reality, it’s a TV show.

Yes, I know that. I’m not sure you’re following what Oreo and I are talking about. For what we’re talking about, that fact is immaterial.

 

[KP3243]

Yes, I know that. I’m not sure you’re following what Oreo and I are talking about. For what we’re talking about, that fact is immaterial.

I got that, I just thought it was a strange example.

 

[Prodigirl]

You didn’t invent sex, God did and when you play by His rules for it you find happiness.

I understand this is your belief, and I would not attempt to influence you away from it, as it would be futile for me to try it.

If God invented sex, then how is it that lust, which is sexual desire, sexual appetite, sexual longing, ardor, desire, passion, and the very thing that brings men and women together for sexual intimacy and possible procreation, --* how is it that lust is sinful?*

God creates sex. It is a gift to mankind. Check. God outlines rules which keep human beings from fully indulging in sex for fear of retribution from the same being who gave it to them as a gift. Check?? That points to a cynical God who toys with human beings like playthings. It’s a set-up.

Please feel free to explain.

 

[Prodigirl]

sex without consequences that reduce humans to mere objects of their partner’s pleasure does not make women happier and marriages where natural family planning takes place have a 98% success rate. So it looks like the Church is right about mutual self giving of spouses.

Sex without consequences. What a curious thing to address. I try not to discuss objectification of men or women here; I would much prefer discussing intimate, bonded relationships. Please do not assume that I’m discussing the free love of the late 1960s.

I think your 98% success rate for NFP is skewed, and I ask you to provide your source for this statistic. What I have found is that “[T]ypical use [of NFP], which refers to the average use, shows a failure rate of approximately 25%.” The source is here: americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/fertilityawarenessnfp.html

 

[Rau]

Is there a commonly understood definition of the term “reproductive rights”?

 

[Oreoracle]

So the cousin-murder word isn’t needed. It doesn’t follow that the word “murder” isn’t needed.

That wasn’t my point. I am saying that just because a word for a specific action doesn’t exist doesn’t imply that people don’t care about it. There may of course be a more general term that the action falls under. In fact, I could make your job pretty simple for you: In your worldview, the word “sin” covers every conceivable evil deed. It’s not a terribly useful term in the sense that it doesn’t offer much clarification, but if your only goal is to have a name for something, it does the trick.

But the real problem with a term like “sin” is that every Christian means something different by it. Sure, they all use it to refer to things that are an affront to God, but they have different opinions about what constitutes an affront to God. So on the surface it appears that Christians agree with each other when they use that term, but their agreement is an illusion–an artifact of language’s ambiguity.

You give me an absolute moral norm, I’ll give you a concept that is needed cross-culturally.

I actually agree with what you suggest here much more than what you’ve expressed thus far. I agree that the concepts are what’s important. Whether or not the concept has a special name is insignificant. Again, I’ll cite my example of there being no word for “to believe on the basis of evidence”. It’s a very important concept that unfortunately lacks a name in our culture.

 

[Rau]

Sex without consequences. What a curious thing to address. I try not to discuss objectification of men or women here; I would much prefer discussing intimate, bonded relationships. Please do not assume that I’m discussing the free love of the late 1960s.

I think your 98% success rate for NFP is skewed, and I ask you to provide your source for this statistic. What I have found is that “[T]ypical use [of NFP], which refers to the average use, shows a failure rate of approximately 25%.” The source is here: americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/fertilityawarenessnfp.html

This table puts typical use failure rate of NFP in first year of use at 1 in 55, a bit under 2%

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

 

[Prodigirl]

Is there a commonly understood definition of the term “reproductive rights”?

“Reproductive freedom lies at the heart of the promise of human dignity, self-determination, and equality embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Center works toward the time when that promise is enshrined in law in the United States and throughout the world. We envision a world where every woman is free to decide whether and when to have children; where every woman has access to the best reproductive healthcare available; where every woman can exercise her choices without coercion or discrimination. More simply put, we envision a world where every woman participates with full dignity as an equal member of society.”
Copyright 2009, Center for Reproductive Rights
120 Wall Street, 14th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10005

 

[Prodigirl]

This table puts typical use failure rate of NFP in first year of use at 1 in 55, a bit under 2%

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

Guttmacher: 24% NFP failure rate with typical use, over one year of use. This includes all three common methods of NFP. Only 2% of at-risk Catholic women rely on natural family planning; the proportion is the same even among those women who attend church once a month or more. Some 68% of Catholics, 73% of Mainline Protestants and 74% of Evangelicals who are at risk of unintended pregnancy use a highly effective method (i.e., sterilization, the pill or another hormonal method, or the IUD)

 

[Prodigirl]

Is there a commonly understood definition of the term “reproductive rights”?

"A series of documents adopted at United Nations conferences,
most notably the 1994 International Conference on Population and
Development (ICPD), have explicitly linked governments’ duties under
international treaties to their obligations to uphold reproductive rights.
As stated in Paragraph 7.3 of the ICPD Programme of Action:

“[R]eproductive rights embrace certain human rights that are already
recognized in national laws, international human rights documents
and other consensus documents. These rights rest on the recognition
of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and
responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to
have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the
highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes
their right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of
discrimination, coercion and violence, as expressed in human
rights documents.”

 

[Rau]

“Reproductive freedom lies at the heart of the promise of human dignity, self-determination, and equality embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Center works toward the time when that promise is enshrined in law in the United States and throughout the world. We envision a world where every woman is free to decide whether and when to have children; where every woman has access to the best reproductive healthcare available; where every woman can exercise her choices without coercion or discrimination. More simply put, we envision a world where every woman participates with full dignity as an equal member of society.”
Copyright 2009, Center for Reproductive Rights
120 Wall Street, 14th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10005

So the explicit rights captured are:
every woman is free to decide whether and when to have children

access to the best reproductive healthcare.
[The remainder of the statement is an assertion that these rights are necessary and central for the dignity of women]

In a country such as the USA (I’m not from there), do women have all these rights? Certainly I know the government does not limit the right to get pregnant/have babies (as in China), nor the right to use contraception, not have sex, etc. The government even allows pregnancies to be ended by medical intervention. What are the major concerns in the USA then?

 

[Rau]

Guttmacher: 24% NFP failure rate with typical use, over one year of use. This includes all three common methods of NFP. …

So, on the basis of these two sets of data, I guess the failure rate is somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 55! The 1 in 55 figure in Wikipedia article is against a method labelled as “symptoms based fertility awareness” (involving monitoring of 1 or more of basal temperature, cervical mucus, vaginal sensation).

 

[Rau]

As stated in Paragraph 7.3 of the ICPD Programme of Action:

“[R]eproductive rights embrace certain human rights that are already
recognized in national laws, international human rights documents
and other consensus documents. These rights rest on the recognition
of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and
responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to
have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the
highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes
their right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of
discrimination, coercion and violence, as expressed in human
rights documents.”

So, combining the takeout from the previous statement and this one we get:

a) every woman is free to decide whether and when to have children
b) able to access the best reproductive healthcare.
c) free to decide on number, spacing and timing
d) have information and means to achieve (c)

Implicit in these rights would be:

• Abortion must be available, to ensure an unwanted pregnancy does not breach the right to limit births to a particular number of children;
• IVF (if one views this as healthcare??) must be available as a means to achieve the decided number of children;
• Contraception must be available if one accepts that having the means to control number / spacing / timing ought not to involve a trade-off with one’s right to have sex.

So “Reproductive Rights” would seem to be largely a right to Contraception / IVF / Abortion and freedom from discrimination, coercion and violence (in connection with the exercise of these rights).

China does not deliver these rights due to limiting number of children (and maybe other issues too).

I don’t know how these rights are applied in complex scenarios such as same sex couples seeking to acquire a child where one of them is/will be a biological parent. Eg. do they imply anything about the right to surrogacy services?

 

[Rau]

I understand this is your belief, and I would not attempt to influence you away from it, as it would be futile for me to try it.

If God invented sex, then how is it that lust, which is sexual desire, sexual appetite, sexual longing, ardor, desire, passion, and the very thing that brings men and women together for sexual intimacy and possible procreation, --* how is it that lust is sinful?*

God creates sex. It is a gift to mankind. Check. God outlines rules which keep human beings from fully indulging in sex for fear of retribution from the same being who gave it to them as a gift. Check?? That points to a cynical God who toys with human beings like playthings. It’s a set-up.
.

You may arrive at your conclusion due to the definition you’ve used for Lust. The definition you’ve supplied above for Lust (“sexual desire, sexual appetite, sexual longing, ardor, desire, passion”) is not what the Church means when it speaks of Lust, though the dictionary may use the word in just the manner you’ve described. What you’ve listed are all “proper” experiences when in an appropriate context. Lust is present when these drives are motivated by (or reduced to) selfishness, to wrongful circumstances (eg. seeking to score at a frat party…), or to reduce another person to a mere means to a (carnal) end.

The world is a tempting place in many more respects than sex. One could say that there are a great many rules whose imposition suggests (at least to the casual observer) a cynical God!