The government's role

[Jerok]

The government’s purpose is simple - to protect life and liberty. It should not prevent people from doing what they want as long as what they do does not harm others’ rights.

It is immoral to have same sex marriages. God abhors it. However, should the government prevent this? I believe not.

Argument: gay marriage harms children who grow up in that environment. However, so does alcohol, but we aren’t prohibiting that.

I understand how people can confuse morality with law. But they are not always the same, since enforcing my morality on another person is almost always wrong.

To be clear - I support gay marriage and I support legalization of drugs, though I don’t drink or do drugs, and seeing homosexuals kiss makes me queasy. I am pro-life, as life must be protected, and believe that the government should protect life at the federal level if possible, as although we all have choice, we do not have the choice to take another person’s life, no matter how young.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The government’s purpose is simple - to protect life and liberty. It should not prevent people from doing what they want as long as what they do does not harm others’ rights…

It is not a matter of the government preventing anything. It is a question of doing something. The government actively does something when it declares a couple married. It actively does something when it confers certain rights upon those that are married (like the right to file your taxes as a couple). The government already doesn’t interfere if two people want to live together and share their life whatever their sex. They can call themselves married privately. They can do whatever they want privately. But when you ask the government to “let” them be actually married you are asking the government to step in and take an active part in that union. If you really wanted to limit the role of government in marriage you would be asking for the institution of marriage as recognized by the government to be abolished for everyone. Is that what you want?

 

[cmforte]

The government’s purpose is simple - to protect life and liberty. It should not prevent people from doing what they want as long as what they do does not harm others’ rights.

It is immoral to have same sex marriages. God abhors it. However, should the government prevent this? I believe not.

Argument: gay marriage harms children who grow up in that environment. However, so does alcohol, but we aren’t prohibiting that.

I understand how people can confuse morality with law. But they are not always the same, since enforcing my morality on another person is almost always wrong.

To be clear - I support gay marriage and I support legalization of drugs, though I don’t drink or do drugs, and seeing homosexuals kiss makes me queasy. I am pro-life, as life must be protected, and believe that the government should protect life at the federal level if possible, as although we all have choice, we do not have the choice to take another person’s life, no matter how young.

I totally agree.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

It is not a matter of the government preventing anything. It is a question of doing something. **The government actively does something when it declares a couple married. It actively does something when it confers certain rights upon those that are married (like the right to file your taxes as a couple). **The government already doesn’t interfere if two people want to live together and share their life whatever their sex. They can call themselves married privately. They can do whatever they want privately. **But when you ask the government to “let” them be actually married you are asking the government to step in and take an active part in that union. **

And that hurts you how

Why? I completely disagree. I think you are mixing up The Church with the Government: to a church or other faith, marriage is a sacred covenant given by God ( what ever “god” that faith believes in and based on whatever scripture that faith beliieves in). To the government, marriage is simply a legal contract. I see no reason why *the government *can’t recognize gay “marriage” as a legal contract, as long as *the Church *doesn’t have to recognize it sacramentally (or at all). The two are separate and distinct entities, with two separate and distinct roles in society.

-Chris

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why? I completely disagree. I think you are mixing up The Church with the Government: to a church or other faith, marriage is a sacred covenant given by God ( what ever “god” that faith believes in and based on whatever scripture that faith beliieves in). To the government, marriage is simply a legal contract. I see no reason why *the government *can’t recognize gay “marriage” as a legal contract, as long as *the Church *doesn’t have to recognize it sacramentally (or at all). The two are separate and distinct entities, with two separate and distinct roles in society.

-Chris

My argument does not rely at all on the Church or its role. If the read the original post (which you apparently completely agreed with) you will see it was an argument based on limiting the role of government. To that I say “yes”.

Marriage is more than a contract between two people. If gays want to form private contracts to formalize their relationship they can already do that. You don’t need a marriage license to form a contract. But marriage recognition by the government is more. It is a contract between the couple and the rest of society. Society grants special recognition to this couple based on what it perceives are its interests. Now those interests may be right or wrong, but it is up to society to decide if they (we) want to grant that status. It is certainly not a case of “leave them alone”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And that hurts you how?

Well, it grants certain tax breaks. I pay taxes too. So if others are getting tax breaks and I am not (assuming I am single) then I end up bearing a larger fraction of the tax burden. That hurts me a little.

 

[cmforte]

Well, it grants certain tax breaks. I pay taxes too. So if others are getting tax breaks and I am not (assuming I am single) then I end up bearing a larger fraction of the tax burden. That hurts me a little.

So get married. How come you don’t use that argument against straight marriage?

Otherwise, you are saying your opposition is based on greed and envy…hmm…aren’t those sins?

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

My argument does not rely at all on the Church or its role. If the read the original post (which you apparently completely agreed with) you will see it was an argument based on limiting the role of government. To that I say “yes”.

Marriage is more than a contract between two people. If gays want to form private contracts to formalize their relationship they can already do that. You don’t need a marriage license to form a contract. But marriage recognition by the government is more. It is a contract between the couple and the rest of society. Society grants special recognition to this couple based on what it perceives are its interests. **Now those interests may be right or wrong, but it is up to society to decide if they (we) want to grant that status. **

Untrue. Remember slavery? the Jim Crow laws? “Right or wrong interests” that “society granted” (or didn’t grant in this case), but, as we all know, they were wrong. Just because “society” wants something, or doesn’t want something, that doesn’t make it right. When a Muslim majority oppresses a christian minority, is that right? Since that society decided on it?

Government shouldn’t be in the sacrament business. The Church recognizes marriage as a sacred sacrament and therefore bound by rules it gets from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Fine. But that is not the role of government.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

My argument does not rely at all on the Church or its role. If the read the original post (which you apparently completely agreed with) you will see it was an argument based on limiting the role of government. To that I say “yes”.

Marriage is more than a contract between two people. If gays want to form private contracts to formalize their relationship they can already do that. You don’t need a marriage license to form a contract. But marriage recognition by the government is more. ** It is a contract between the couple and the rest of society. **

According to whom? Why?

-Chris

 

[sedonaman]

… I understand how people can confuse morality with law. But they are not always the same, since enforcing my morality on another person is almost always wrong. …

They are always the same, at least in our system of government. The law is nothing more than the codification of someone’s concept of what’s right and wrong. Ex.: speed laws. They are based on the moral notion that you should not unduly endanger other peoples’ lives. And so it goes; the law specifies what you should or should not do; IOW, it is a moral code. This is why you vote for one candidate you agree with over his opponent: to have your beliefs coded by him instead of someone else’s by his opponent. So, every time you vote, you are attempting to “enforce your morality” on everyone else. It’s only a question of whose morality.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The government’s purpose is simple - to protect life and liberty. It should not prevent people from doing what they want as long as what they do does not harm others’ rights.

It is immoral to have same sex marriages. God abhors it. However, should the government prevent this? I believe not.

Argument: gay marriage harms children who grow up in that environment. However, so does alcohol, but we aren’t prohibiting that.

I understand how people can confuse morality with law. But they are not always the same, since enforcing my morality on another person is almost always wrong.

To be clear - I support gay marriage and I support legalization of drugs, though I don’t drink or do drugs, and seeing homosexuals kiss makes me queasy. I am pro-life, as life must be protected, and believe that the government should protect life at the federal level if possible, as although we all have choice, we do not have the choice to take another person’s life, no matter how young.

1. The government has more of a responsibility than that.
2. The state has a right to defend marriage. Allowing same-sex “marriage” does just the opposite.
3. Alcohol can be good in moderation. Homosexual relationships can’t be good.
4. Drugs have a terrible influence on society and the government should outlaw illicit drugs.
5. Since you are a new Catholic I strongly recommend reading the catechism and other Church documents to get the Church’s view on this. Because the Catholic Church absolutely does not support gay marriage since it is horrible to society and children.

 

[cmforte]

1. The government has more of a responsibility than that.

No, it doesn’t.

So, what about alcohol and coffee? And sodas for that matter? Cigarettes? All of these are unhealthy when taken to extremes.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

.

1. Since you are a new Catholic I strongly recommend reading the catechism and other Church documents to get the Church’s view on this. Because the Catholic Church absolutely does not support gay marriage since it is horrible to society and children.

I know my Church’s position. But can it proove that? Why did it come to that conclusion?

-Chris

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I know my Church’s position. But can it proove that? Why did it come to that conclusion?

-Chris

Talking to Jerok here.

But maybe you agree with Jerok in post 3 because you are Jerok?

 

[cmforte]

Talking to Jerok here.

But maybe you agree with Jerok in post 3 because you are Jerok?

I know who you were talking to. But i felt compelled to answer. And I do agree with Jerok, on everything so far.

But no, I’m not Jerok.

-Chris

 

[sedonaman]

I know my Church’s position. But can it proove that? Why did it come to that conclusion?

-Chris

Why don’t you do a little research and find out? Don’t automatically reject a teaching just because you don’t understand it. That’s the ignorant mentality of the '60s counter-culture.

---

“Never tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” ~ Old African proverb

 

[cmforte]

Why don’t you do a little research and find out? Don’t automatically reject a teaching just because you don’t understand it. That’s the ignorant mentality of the '60s counter-culture.

---

“Never tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” ~ Old African proverb

Lol I wasn’t even around in the 60s!! That is like 100 years ago to me!! And actually I have seen reports that concluded that homosexual parenting does not hurt children. That is even why I asked. Here is just one of them:

**[Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

Researchers Say Children Who Grow Up in Households With Gay Parents Have Normal Self-Esteem](http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids)**:

WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Oct.12, 2005 (Washington) – Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.

“There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent,” says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.

Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.

“The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way,” she tells WebMD. “In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.”

Study Results

Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

“Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents’ children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex,” Perrin says. “They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school.”

Another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and a similar number of children of heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships.

Then, again, I am *not *advocating same sex parenting, That is where I draw the line. I just don’t think that the government should be telling two consenting adults that they can’t marry each other. I just wanted to show that, no, gay marriage does not hurt children. Either you want the government out of people’s lives, or you don’t. Which is it?

Chris

 

[sedonaman]

… Either you want the government out of people’s lives, or you don’t. Which is it?

Chris

It’s amazing how many times posters here resort to the false dilemma argument. You either have extreme A or extreme Z [Which is it?]; there is no other choice.

It is impossible to “get government out of peoples’ lives.” Since people are sinful, what happens when the inevitable conflict occurs? The only thing we can do is reasonably limit government’s intrusion.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. It later came to light that a not insignificant number were homosexuals themselves.

 

[edwest2]

The government’s purpose is simple - to protect life and liberty. It should not prevent people from doing what they want as long as what they do does not harm others’ rights.

It is immoral to have same sex marriages. God abhors it. However, should the government prevent this? I believe not.

Argument: gay marriage harms children who grow up in that environment. However, so does alcohol, but we aren’t prohibiting that.

I understand how people can confuse morality with law. But they are not always the same, since enforcing my morality on another person is almost always wrong.

To be clear - I support gay marriage and I support legalization of drugs, though I don’t drink or do drugs, and seeing homosexuals kiss makes me queasy. I am pro-life, as life must be protected, and believe that the government should protect life at the federal level if possible, as although we all have choice, we do not have the choice to take another person’s life, no matter how young.

How about forcing immorality on everyone else? Right and wrong do require religion, and religious views should never be excluded from the public debate.

Homosexuals do not have compatible body parts for sex. Men and women do.

The legalization of drugs would cause easily provable harm to users and the public at large.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sedonaman]

How about forcing immorality on everyone else? Right and wrong do require religion, and religious views should never be excluded from the public debate.

Homosexuals do not have compatible body parts for sex. Men and women do.

The legalization of drugs would cause easily provable harm to users and the public at large.

Peace,
Ed