Why the fuss?

[EasterJoy]

Never said that it was.Let pme just remind me what I was replying to

This type of thing, IMHO, can only be said by someone who likes a theocracy.

A theocracy is a government ruled by clergy or people who claim immediate access to divine guidance. It is not the same as a government in which the people are informed by religious sensibility. After all, the Declaration of Independence pre-supposes a Creator and claims that Creator as the source of the rights of humankind. Furthermore, it pre-supposes the existence of a natural law that comes from God:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

If merely acknowledging the existence of a natural law that ought to guide a just society makes that society into a theocracy, well then we are by our political inheritance a theocracy. Since that describes most societies prior to Communism, however, IMHO that definition is so overly broad as to be either useless or to be an overly-convenient and frankly disingenuous red herring employed in order to exclude moral law from political discourse altogether.

IOW, there are those in this country who do not want “morality” to be a consideration in law-making at all. They act as if a modern society has no just reason whatsoever to hold, let alone enforce, any but the most rudimentary of common moral codes, that any common moral code they don’t happen to agree with is an affront to individual liberty and that mention of such a code should not even be allowed in public discussion.

Horsefeathers. We have a right as a society to make laws that conform to what we know to be right and wrong. We don’t have to apologize that we came to know right from wrong at church or from ancient traditions, instead of out of the books of some “enlightened” modern philosopher or what we have gathered personally from some one or two or three decades of individual experience at suiting ourselves.

 

[Elizabeth502]

In fact, the root of law and law-making is supposed to be oriented toward the common good, which by definition includes ideals, and further implies order. The intent of good law is not to sacrifice individual rights for the common good or vice-versa. There has been a disturbing trend in the last 25 years (minimum) in this country to orient law in some cases exclusively to individual “rights,” including when such laws, and interpretation of cases brought, jeopardize that common good. IOW, the movement has been increasingly not only to preserve true constitutional rights, but to create artificial new ones which work in opposition to society. This is a runaway train which fractures a society and is headed for disaster.

 

[belorg]

A theocracy is a government ruled by clergy or people who claim immediate access to divine guidance. It is not the same as a government in which the people are informed by religious sensibility. After all, the Declaration of Independence pre-supposes a Creator and claims that Creator as the source of the rights of humankind. Furthermore, it pre-supposes the existence of a natural law that comes from God:

In case you still don’t understand it, let’s repeat once more what I was replying to:
‘It’s not just the “civil union” aspect. It is the fact that in granting civil unions to homosexuals, society is encouraging homsexual activity, which is gravely sinful, not just in the Catholic Church, but in any Christian religion that adheres to Sacred Scripture.’

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

What in this decaration (by deists, BTW, not Christian theists) refers to any Christian religion that adheres to the Sacred Scriptures?

If merely acknowledging the existence of a natural law that ought to guide a just society makes that society into a theocracy, well then we are by our political inheritance a theocracy.

Well, as a European, I sometimes wonder whether the US have evolved into a theocracy rather than a democracy, but I’ll repeat, I was replying to ahs who, AFAICT, was referring specifically to Christian religion and not just to what somebody thinks is “a natural law”

Since that describes most societies prior to Communism, however, IMHO that definition is so overly broad as to be either useless or to be an overly-convenient and frankly disingenuous red herring employed in order to exclude moral law from political discourse altogether.

I have said nothing about moral law. I was talking about specifically Christian law,
There are peoplae in the world and even in the US who are not convinced they are the same.

IOW, there are those in this country who do not want “morality” to be a consideration in law-making at all.

That may be true, but let’s not confuse Christian beliefs with moral laws.

They act as if a modern society has no just reason whatsoever to hold, let alone enforce, any but the most rudimentary of common moral codes, that any common moral code they don’t happen to agree with is an affront to individual liberty and that mention of such a code should not even be allowed in public discussion.

Mentioning it is allowed in public discussion, imposing it on people who don’t believ it, however, isn’t.

Horsefeathers. We have a right as a society to make laws that conform to what we know to be right and wrong.

In a theocary, yes, in a democracy, whether you like it or not, a minority cannot make laws that only they think are right and wrong. What is right and wrong in a democracy is determined by what the majority thinks is right or wrong.
I am not saying that’s an ideal situation, but if you don’t like it, you should try to establish a theocarcy after all.

]We don’t have to apologize that we came to know right from wrong at church or from ancient traditions, instead of out of the books of some “enlightened” modern philosopher or what we have gathered personally from some one or two or three decades of individual experience at suiting ourselves.

Then , by all means, establish a society based on an ancient book. But that is known as a theocracy.

 

[michelleds]

actually, you are mis-using the word “theocracy”. a theocracy is one where God or a deity is recognized as the head of government. usually there is a claim to a divine commission.

this is to be distinguished from a government that is influenced by theological or moral concepts.

by conflating these distinct concepts, you are exposing either your intellectual dishonesty or sloppiness in word choice.

 

[belorg]

No, that type of thing was said by someone who loves every person and recognizes that we all called to holiness. It was said by a person who fears for the souls of persons who obstinately engage in sin because that person realizes the reality of the end of life:

You have every rifght to fear for the souls of persons. who obstinately engage in sin’ and you even have the right to say that you belive that they obstinately engage in sin and will burn in hell forever.
In a **democracy **however, you do not have the right to impose laws solely based on what you happen to believe on persons that who do not share your beliefs.
Would you like a Muslim imposing a law on you that obliges women to stay inside the whole day because this Muslim genuinely believes they will go to heel if they don’t?

1 - We will all die someday

this is true.

2 - We will be judged

I don’t believe this. You have the right to believe this and even to warn me. But if I don’t believe it, it does not make any difference to me.

3 - We will EITHER go to Heaven (with cleansing/purging first)
4 - OR be cast into Hell

I don’t believe that for a moment. And not just because I am an atheists. Deep down you don’t belmive it either.

To say to my same-sex-attracted friends that I support their legal right to marriage is to tell them I support the homosexual lifestyle…a lifestyle condemned by God…which could cause them the loss of eternal life in Heaven.

That is not true. you could say that you support their** legal ** right to marriage but that, as a Catholic, you don’t support their lifestyle because you believe it is condemned by God etc. Then they have the choice to believe you or not.
And, in a democracy, you even have the right to vote against same-sex marriage, even if your opinion is solely based on the primitive beliefs of an ancient tribe.

I prefer to encourage them to seek happiness in chaste living, in finding happiness in ways that do not endanger their immortal souls…because I love them…not because of this “theocracy” idea that you have.

I f you want **the state **to impose your preferred lifestyle on them, then, following the argument you have given, that comes down to theocratic thinking.

You can put whatever label you want on that.

Well , I can put definitions on that, and the only definition for what you are proposing is a theocracy.

God love you,
ahs

According to you, He doesn’t because He will ‘cast me into hell’

 

[belorg]

actually, you are mis-using the word “theocracy”. a theocracy is one where God or a deity is recognized as the head of government. usually there is a claim to a divine commission.

That’s exactly what ahs is doing.

this is to be distinguished from a government that is influenced by theological or moral concepts.

“Theological” does not equal “moral”. By conflating these distinct concepts, you are either exposing your intelectual dishonesty or sloppiness in word choice.

Instead of launching ad hominem attacks, why don’t you argue instead?

 

[ahs]

In a **democracy **however, you do not have the right to impose laws solely based on what you happen to believe on persons that who do not share your beliefs.

I am not, nor is the Church, imposing any laws on anyone. What law has been imposed on society by the Church, ever in America? The Church does not impose laws on teh general public, but it has every right to oppose them when laws represent a danger to the morals of the country or a danger to innocent life (like the law that says we can muder innocent babies in the womb for example). And the Church’s oppostition is not an imposition by any means. Again, what law are you referring to which the Church has imposed on society?

I don’t believe that for a moment. And not just because I am an atheists. Deep down you don’t belmive it either.

I do believe that we will be judged and either go to Heaven or to Hell. The fact that you don’t believe it doesn’t make it any less true. It’s just the truth, regardless of anyone’s beliefs.

That is not true. you could say that you support their** legal ** right to marriage but that, as a Catholic, you don’t support their lifestyle because you believe it is condemned by God etc. Then they have the choice to believe you or not.
And, in a democracy, you even have the right to vote against same-sex marriage, even if your opinion is solely based on the primitive beliefs of an ancient tribe. .

I don’t support their legal right to marriage because it demeans and tears down the meaning of marriage, an institution given to us by our Creator, with a specific purpose in mind (see Genesis). The best way for me to show my love to my same-sex-attracted friends is to encourage them to grow in holiness and chastity and live in the grace of God rather than dwell in their sin.

According to you, He doesn’t because He will ‘cast me into hell’

He won’t cast you into Hell unless you choose it. He loves you regardless of what you do or don’t believe. IT is your choice to accept that love or reject it. God DOES love you. You just have to decide if you love Him.

 

[EasterJoy]

In case you still don’t understand it, let’s repeat once more what I was replying to:
‘It’s not just the “civil union” aspect. It is the fact that in granting civil unions to homosexuals, society is encouraging homsexual activity, which is gravely sinful, not just in the Catholic Church, but in any Christian religion that adheres to Sacred Scripture.’

What in this decaration (by deists, BTW, not Christian theists) refers to any Christian religion that adheres to the Sacred Scriptures?

Well, as a European, I sometimes wonder whether the US have evolved into a theocracy rather than a democracy, but I’ll repeat, I was replying to ahs who, AFAICT, was referring specifically to Christian religion and not just to what somebody thinks is “a natural law”

I have said nothing about moral law. I was talking about specifically Christian law,
There are peoplae in the world and even in the US who are not convinced they are the same

That may be true, but let’s not confuse Christian beliefs with moral laws.

Mentioning it is allowed in public discussion, imposing it on people who don’t believ it, however, isn’t.

In a theocary, yes, in a democracy, whether you like it or not, a minority cannot make laws that only they think are right and wrong. What is right and wrong in a democracy is determined by what the majority thinks is right or wrong.
I am not saying that’s an ideal situation, but if you don’t like it, you should try to establish a theocarcy after all.

Then , by all means, establish a society based on an ancient book. But that is known as a theocracy.

A minority can’t determine what is right and wrong in a democracy? I guess in Europe they don’t have any equivalent of the ACLU. And oh, thank you, thank you, we who believe in a moral law can mention our beliefs…that is, as long as the ideas remain totally impotent, because as soon as a moral law has mention of God attached to it, it isn’t a moral law any more, it is religion. My, what an enlightened position. Be political or be religious, but don’t think you’re going to be both at once! You do realize we’re not talking about forcing people to go to Mass? We’re talking about a common societal understanding of the definition of marriage, about whether or not homosexual relationships are the equivalent to heterosexual. This isn’t theology, it’s biology, and it is the majority, religious and non, who are being shouted down.

I am referring to internet forums in which anyone who thinks homosexual relationships aren’t the equivalent to heterosexual ones is derided for “forcing your morality on the rest of us.” The problem is that moral people are becoming convinced by this kind of rhetoric that they have no standing to insist that their society have laws that support moral behaviors. And so we have threads like this on a Catholic forum: Why the fuss?

In 2010, we actually had a political battle in Oregon because there was a law on the books that forbade public school teachers from wearing religious garb. It was enacted in 1923 to prevent nuns and priests from being employed as teachers in public schools. In this century, it was preventing Muslim women from teaching in public schools.* The American Civil Liberties Union came down in favor of retaining the legal ban on religious garb!!* We are talking about the same school system that in 2009 protected a man’s right to go back to his high school, only in 2009 he showed up in dresses and make-up and required his students to refer to him using feminine pronouns!! He could teach math in a public high school while pretending he was a woman, but the ACLU was concerned lest a Muslim woman teach with a headscarf on!!

secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1853
portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=125192576022987100

Now, you tell me how it is that the American Civil Liberties Union can be threatened by women in headscarfs–and we are not even talking about the kind that obscure the eyes, just veils–but is OK that a man decides to wear dresses, saying it “raises awareness.” The cross-dressing man who wants to become a woman said this is an issue of “love yourself.” OK…how would we word this for the Muslim who knows his aunt can’t teach math in Oregon? “Be ashamed of yourself”? How on earth could anybody say that we live in a theocracy?!?

This isn’t about protecting the rights of the minority. It is about the minority re-writing the laws of morality and pretending that this is not what they’re doing, because in their rhetoric they pretend that the whole concept of societal morality is arbitrary and irrelevant.

 

[belorg]

I am not, nor is the Church, imposing any laws on anyone. What law has been imposed on society by the Church, ever in America? The Church does not impose laws on teh general public, but it has every right to oppose them when laws represent a danger to the morals of the country or a danger to innocent life (like the law that says we can muder innocent babies in the womb for example). And the Church’s oppostition is not an imposition by any means. Again, what law are you referring to which the Church has imposed on society?

What do you think given you (or the Chruch for that matter) the right to intefere with what consritutes or does not constitute a legal marriage? This has nothin whatsoever to do with a Catholic marrige or even a Christian marriage.

I do believe that we will be judged and either go to Heaven or to Hell. The fact that you don’t believe it doesn’t make it any less true. It’s just the truth, regardless of anyone’s beliefs.

No, you believe it is true (in fact, you don’t), that does not make it true.

I don’t support their legal right to marriage because it demeans and tears down the meaning of marriage, an institution given to us by our Creator, with a specific purpose in mind (see Genesis).

Legal marriage has not been given to us by our Creator. It has been given to us by the law, based on a democratic vote.

The best way for me to show my love to my same-sex-attracted friends is to encourage them to grow in holiness and chastity and live in the grace of God rather than dwell in their sin.

I have nothing against an advice. they can take it or leave it. What I do oppsoe, however, is interfering with a law. If there is a law that allows same-sex marriages (as there is in my country) you can only use democratic means to change the law, but that means you impose your views on people who do not share it.

He won’t cast you into Hell unless you choose it.

Great, because I do not choose to be cats in hell, and neither do your smame sex attracted friends. And if God truly loves them. And FYI blackmailing people into accepting His rules is does NOT equal love)

He loves you regardless of what you do or don’t believe.

That’s great news.

IT is your choice to accept that love or reject it. God DOES love you. You just have to decide if you love Him.

Well, if He exists, I love Him. Despite the fact that I think He is wrong. That’s what love is all about.

 

[EasterJoy]

What do you think given you (or the Chruch for that matter) the right to intefere with what consritutes or does not constitute a legal marriage? This has nothin whatsoever to do with a Catholic marrige or even a Christian marriage.

Legal marriage has not been given to us by our Creator. It has been given to us by the law, based on a democratic vote.

Great, because I do not choose to be cats in hell, and neither do your smame sex attracted friends. And if God truly loves them. And FYI blackmailing people into accepting His rules is does NOT equal love)

Well, if He exists, I love Him. Despite the fact that I think He is wrong. That’s what love is all about.

If we know the moral law, and you don’t, which of us do you think God will hold responsible when society decided to announce there was no reason not to encourage gays to pretend marriage?

Marriage isn’t an arbitrary human construct, not even civil marriage. It exists in order to provide societal support to the biological family. It exists to make breadwinners responsible to their families.

Now, there are automatic legal constructs that go along with marriage, such as having mutual legal authority in the case of incapacity, that two adults who cannot marry might nevertheless want to give each other. The Church does not oppose giving priveleges formerly reserved to married couples to other adults when those priveleges would benefit society generally. There is no moral law against this. That is not the same as redefining marriage is a sense so broad that the original intention of the institution is lost.

 

[belorg]

A minority can’t determine what is right and wrong in a democracy?

No

I guess in Europe they don’t have any equivalent of the ACLU.

The ACLU does not determine what is right or wrong.

And oh, thank you, thank you, we who believe in a moral law can mention our beliefs…

Of course.

.

that is, as long as the ideas remain totally impotent, because as soon as a moral law has mention of God attached to it, it isn’t a moral law any more, it is religion.

No, a moal law that has mention of God attached to it is not necessarily a religious law. If, however, the law is solely based on the fear that some supernatural entity will cast someone in hel, it is religion.

My, what an enlightened position. Be political or be religious, but don’t think you’re going to be both at once! You do realize we’re not talking about forcing people to go to Mass?

Well, I do not know hwy you are not doing that. Why don’t you advocate a alw that forces people to attend mass. If they don’t, they will go to hell.

We’re talking about a common societal understanding of the definition of marriage, about whether or not homosexual relationships are the equivalent to heterosexual.

No, we are not. We are talking about people being cast into hell.

This isn’t theology, it’s biology, and it is the majority, religious and non, who are being shouted down.

If it’s bioplogy, then you should argue from that position. Not from the position of fear of someone being cast into hell.

I am referring to internet forums in which anyone who thinks homosexual relationships aren’t the equivalent to heterosexual ones is derided for “forcing your morality on the rest of us.”

That’s an opinion, and in some cases at least it is true.

The problem is that moral people are becoming convinced by this kind of rhetoric that they have no standing to insist that their society have laws that support moral behaviors. And so we have threads like this on a Catholic forum: Why the fuss?

Yes, indeed, ‘moral’ people (meaning people who accept what the infaalible Pope says) sometimes start thunking for themselves.

In 2010, we actually had a political battle in Oregon because there was a law on the books that forbade public school teachers from wearing religious garb.

In my (public) school, teachers are forbiden to wear religious garb.

It was enacted in 1923 to prevent nuns and priests from being employed as teachers in public schools. In this century, it was preventing Muslim women from teaching in public schools.* *

Muslims are not forbiden to teach in my school. However, they should not wear religious garb.

The American Civil Liberties Union came down in favor of retaining the legal ban on religious garb!!

Yes, and what’s your point

We are talking about the same school system that in 2009 protected a man’s right to go back to his high school, only in 2009 he showed up in dresses and make-up and required his students to refer to him using feminine pronouns!!

Yes, and what’s your point?

He could teach math in a public high school while pretending he was a woman, but the ACLU was concerned lest a Muslim woman teach with a headscarf on!!

Yes, and what’s the point?

Now, you tell me how it is that the American Civil Liberties Union can be threatened by women in headscarfs–and we are not even talking about the kind that obscure the eyes, just veils–but is OK that a man decides to wear dresses, saying it “raises awareness.”

T

I am not here to defend the ACLU.

he cross-dressing man who wants to become a woman said this is an issue of “love yourself.” OK…how would we word this for the Muslim who knows his aunt can’t teach math in Oregon? “Be ashamed of yourself”? How on earth could anybody say that we live in a theocracy?!?

Fortunately you are not living in a total theocarcy yet.

This isn’t about protecting the rights of the minority. It is about the minority re-writing the laws of morality and pretending that this is not what they’re doing, because in their rhetoric they pretend that the whole concept of societal morality is arbitrary and irrelevant.

Some aspects of morality just are arbitray and irrelevant.

 

[belorg]

If we know the moral law, and you don’t, which of us do you think God will hold responsible when society decided to announce there was no reason not to encourage gays to pretend marriage?

Neither of us, of course.

Marriage isn’t an arbitrary human construct, not even civil marriage.

I’ve never said it was an arbitrary construct.

It exists in order to provide societal support to the biological family. It exists to make breadwinners responsible to their families.

It also exists in order to provide societal support for two people who love each other.
And in a same-sex marriage, breadwinners are resposnisble fro their families too.

Now, there are automatic legal constructs that go along with marriage, such as having mutual legal authority in the case of incapacity, that two adults who cannot marry might nevertheless want to give each other. The Church does not oppose giving priveleges formerly reserved to married couples to other adults when those priveleges would benefit society generally. There is no moral law against this. That is not the same as redefining marriage is a sense so broad that the original intention of the institution is lost.

A civil marriage is already a redefinition. There is (at least in my country), no obligation to have children in a civil marriage. So, regardless of same-sex or not, the civil marriage does not exist in order to provide societal support for the biological family. Heterosexual marriage exist to provide societal support for the man and the woman who love ecah other and want to have a relationship.And same-sex marriage is the same, except it is for two men or two women.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have nothing against an advice…What I do oppsoe, however, is interfering with a law.

The Holy Father …wants to see the bishops tell the laity how to deal with the politicians in a way that protects the right of the Church to be free of influence from the State, but does not leave the state room to be free of the Church’s moral guidance.

Catholics in the USA have allowed the government too much freedom. Bl. John Paul said this to American Catholics on several occasions. I remember when he came to Baltimore, he blasted American Catholics for allowing the State to regulate morality. He argued that American Catholics had not made good use of democracy by making it a goal in life rather than a means for evangelization. Pope Benedict feels the same way. When he speaks to American clergy and religious, this is his constant theme.

We live in a society where religion is to be free from the interference of the State. We should take advantage of that freedom to tell the State what is right and what is wrong and to guide the State. We have misunderstood. We have supported the myth that says there is such a thing as separation between Church and State. This is impossible, because the men and women who make up the Church are citizens of this nation. We have the right to demand that the State listen and that the State not trespass in areas of faith and morals.

The Founding Fathers never said there was such a separation. In fact, Jefferson said that the state could not exist without religion. The State was to stay out of religion, not religion out of the State. The Constitution does not say separation of Church and State. The presidents who have governed our nation have always invoked God. Congress begins the day with prayer. In fact, it’s new chaplain is a Jesuit priest, theologian and lawyer.

 

[belorg]

Yes, I can see from your quote that the ‘Holy Father’ would like a theocracy much more than a democracy.
It’s really very simple: in a democracy every citizen is allowed to have an opinion, is allowed to voice this opinion and is allowed to from groups of people who have the same opinion.
A democratic government, however, should take into account everybody’s advice but should not a priori consider one group’s advice more valuable than another’s.

IOW my advice in a democracy should a priori be considered equal to that of the Pope.

And if, despite the advise from the Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist or whatever group, a decision is made that one of these groups do not like, that group should try to win more democratic support by arguing, in much the same way any individual should do. Of course, groups have more influene, that’s all.

That the presidents of your nation have always invoked God is, I hope, their personal choice. That’s their right, although they have a constitutional duty to be the president of the whole nation, not just of a segment of the nation. So, they should be careful not to discriminate against people who do not share their beliefs.

This being said, I have always found the Gof-is-on-our-side metality of various US presidents rather hypocritical, especially when they invoke God to support then in killing innocnet people.

In my country, the Prime Minister, who is Catholic and a member of the Christian democartic party in official speeches never mentions God or religion, although he does not make a secret of his conviction. In the debate about same-sex marriage, no political party ever mentioned religious arguments, and the law was passed without much fuss. SS-marriage have been legal for 8 years now, and hs pretty much become a non-issue. there are the rare occasions where a very small and insignificant group of fundamentals organise a demonstration, attended by a few hundred people, but that’s all. For the rest, everything runs its course and nothing has really changed.

 

[EasterJoy]

No

The ACLU does not determine what is right or wrong.

Of course.

No, a moal law that has mention of God attached to it is not necessarily a religious law. If, however, the law is solely based on the fear that some supernatural entity will cast someone in hel, it is religion.

Well, I do not know hwy you are not doing that. Why don’t you advocate a alw that forces people to attend mass. If they don’t, they will go to hell.

No, we are not. We are talking about people being cast into hell

If it’s bioplogy, then you should argue from that position. Not from the position of fear of someone being cast into hell.

That’s an opinion, and in some cases at least it is true.

Yes, indeed, ‘moral’ people (meaning people who accept what the infaalible Pope says) sometimes start thunking for themselves.

In my (public) school, teachers are forbiden to wear religious garb.

Muslims are not forbiden to teach in my school. However, they should not wear religious garb.

Yes, and what’s your point

Yes, and what’s your point?

Yes, and what’s the point?

I am not here to defend the ACLU.

Fortunately you are not living in a total theocarcy yet.

Some aspects of morality just are arbitray and irrelevant.

You have to realize that while you may think moral law is arbitrary, that there is no objective difference whether there are behavioral taboos or imperatives or not, that just doesn’t make sense. If this is taboo or that is an imperative, those behavioral boundaries will objectively have effects on society. Therefore, even secular societal morality is never arbitrary. It makes a difference. What clothing is in fashion this year can’t even be depended upon to be totally arbitrary as to its effects on the world, as protectors of seals and foxes could tell you. (Even the fact that fashion is so changeable, after all, makes a difference in how many resources humans consume to cloth themselves!) Make the fashion of real ivory jewelry illegal, and it will make a big difference to the elephants!

My point is that those who oppose religion, who are more comfortable with students learning that there are nice math teachers who are cross-dressers than that there are nice math teachers who are Muslim women wearing traditional garb, try to say this issue is about liberty and not about forcing one narrow view on everyone else. It is not. It is about the effect that gay marriage has on society. This is not just a matter of “live and let live.” Society has a stake in answering this question.

I don’t think anybody said that they oppose gay marriage “solely” because they fear someone is going to be cast into hell. The fact that we put it into terms of our religion does not mean that we think God could have easily made homosexuality the norm that society has an interest in protecting and heterosexual relationships the ones that have a different standing because they produce children. That is what arbitrary means: when it makes no difference whether something is considered right or not.

This is why there is a “big fuss”: One side contends that there is a positive effect in giving heterosexual relationships a particular status, because of the positive place of parents and grandparents in society. The other side contends not only that the effect of homosexual relationships are positive, but that the effect of homosexual relationships is the same as heterosexual ones, and therefore by right ought to be treated the same. That is a very big issue.

If they are not the same, there is going to be an effect that follows from treating them as if they were. If they are the same, there is going to be an effect that follows from treating them as if they were not. Whatever you decide to think about this question, be sure of this: It isn’t arbitrary. It makes a difference, and that a person thinks the difference will be felt both now and eternally doesn’t change that. You can dismiss the eternal part, but the temporal effects still remain to be contended with.

 

[belorg]

You have to realize that while you may think moral law is arbitrary, that there is no objective difference whether there are behavioral taboos or imperatives or not, that just doesn’t make sense.

Moeal laws aren’t arbitrary and I have never claimed they were.

My point is that those who oppose religion, who are more comfortable with students learning that there are nice math teachers who are cross-dressers than that there are nice math teachers who are Muslim women wearing traditional garb, try to say this issue is about liberty and not about forcing one narrow view on everyone else.

That’s true. It is not about forcing one narrow view on everybody else.
And I do not know the details about this clothing story. I personally have nothing against Muslim women wearing traditional garb not have I anything against math-teachers who are cross-dressers, but it does no necessarily follow that if you forbid one, you should also forbid the other. It depends on the reasons behind it.

It is not. It is about the effect that gay marriage has on society. This is not just a matter of “live and let live.” Society has a stake in answering this question.

I agree with that, but that is not the issue in this discussion.

I don’t think anybody said that they oppose gay marriage “solely” because they fear someone is going to be cast into hell.

I replied to someone who explicttly used that reason. I am not discussing the other reasons here.

The fact that we put it into terms of our religion does not mean that we think God could have easily made homosexuality the norm that society has an interest in protecting and heterosexual relationships the ones that have a different standing because they produce children. That is what arbitrary means: when it makes no difference whether something is considered right or not.

That may be true, but I am not disputing this. I am disputing the right of one religious group to impose their rules onto others because they believe their truth is the only truth. I do not oppose rational arguments.

This is why there is a “big fuss”: One side contends that there is a positive effect in giving heterosexual relationships a particular status, because of the positive place of parents and grandparents in society.

Heterosexual relationships still have a special status in my country, where same-sex marriages are legal. Before SSM were legal, they were as many homosexual relations as today, andnowadays, marriage isn’t very popular, neither with heterosexuals not with homosexuals.
Point is, e.g. that a man and a woman who do not want children can have a civil marriage, so civil marriage in istelf has nothing to do with the positive place of parents and garndparents and men and women have children without being married, and those children have parents and garndparents too.

The other side contends not only that the effect of homosexual relationships are positive, but that the effect of homosexual relationships is the same as heterosexual ones, and therefore by right ought to be treated the same. That is a very big issue.

There may be people who argue that, but of course the effects of homosexual relationships are not the same, but the effect of my marriage (FYI I am a heterosexual and have beenn happily married for over 25 years now) is not the sme as the efect of somenody else’s marriage either.

If they are not the same, there is going to be an effect that follows from treating them as if they were. If they are the same, there is going to be an effect that follows from treating them as if they were not. Whatever you decide to think about this question, be sure of this: It isn’t arbitrary. It makes a difference, and that a person thinks the difference will be felt both now and eternally doesn’t change that. You can dismiss the eternal part, but the temporal effects still remain to be contended with.

Of course I think about that. But that wasn’t the issue of this discussion.

 

[Nate13]

@Belorg
Alright I have a question for you over the idea of marriage. Marriage from its inception, is a religious practice. The state currently chooses to recognize this religious practice and provides rights and privileges for those who do. How is this not state sponsored religion, that imposes on those who don’t believe in the idea of two person relationships as being the best for society? Where is the proof that relationships with 3, 4, 5+ people involved are not as beneficial to society? Obviously we should let those relationships enter into a “marriage” if we are going to give equal rights to all?

The point of this is to show that both our governments have a deeply religious practice at their base. Atheist may have stripped a lot of the meaning from marriage that religious put into it, but the idea at its core is a religious principle. I think the better question is why do atheist and the non-religious chose to only have one spouse? I can look back into history and find both good and bad examples of this practice, and probably more good examples of multiple partners than I could of homosexual relationships. So the real question is why are our governments discriminating in favor on one man - one woman relationships? The answer is natural law, which is the exact same reason we are opposing homosexual marriages. Ask yourself why you believe two person marriages are the best thing for society and then see how many of those reasons can be applied to same-sex marriages. Actually I would be curious to know your reasons behind supporting marriage only being between two people assuming you do so.

 

[belorg]

@Belorg
Alright I have a question for you over the idea of marriage. Marriage from its inception, is a religious practice. The state currently chooses to recognize this religious practice and provides rights and privileges for those who do. How is this not state sponsored religion, that imposes on those who don’t believe in the idea of two person relationships as being the best for society? Where is the proof that relationships with 3, 4, 5+ people involved are not as beneficial to society? Obviously we should let those relationships enter into a “marriage” if we are going to give equal rights to all?

The point of this is to show that both our governments have a deeply religious practice at their base. Atheist may have stripped a lot of the meaning from marriage that religious put into it, but the idea at its core is a religious principle. I think the better question is why do atheist and the non-religious chose to only have one spouse? I can look back into history and find both good and bad examples of this practice, and probably more good examples of multiple partners than I could of homosexual relationships. So the real question is why are our governments discriminating in favor on one man - one woman relationships? The answer is natural law, which is the exact same reason we are opposing homosexual marriages. Ask yourself why you believe two person marriages are the best thing for society and then see how many of those reasons can be applied to same-sex marriages. Actually I would be curious to know your reasons behind supporting marriage only being between two people assuming you do so.

I shall try to answer your question.
Marriage from its inception is not a religious practice. It is a social and traditional practice that has religious and secular backgrounds.
The reason I am behind supporting marriage between 2 people is simple: In other forms of marriage the partners would probably not be equal. In most cases (let’s say of 3 people)one of the partners loves the two others, but it is not necessarily so (and the chance is not so big) that the two other partners each also love the two other partners. While it is not impossible, it is not every likely either, and the more partners, the more chance of inequality.

The same holds for children. The chanceof conflict in a ‘marriage’ of 3 partners is much higher than in the case of 2 partners, and so is the chance of children being harmed in any way.
There is also a very practical side to it: in case of divorce: what about the children? Etc.

So, these are a few reasons why I think marriage between two partners is to be preferred.

 

[Nate13]

I shall try to answer your question.
Marriage from its inception is not a religious practice. It is a social and traditional practice that has religious and secular backgrounds.
The reason I am behind supporting marriage between 2 people is simple: In other forms of marriage the partners would probably not be equal. In most cases (let’s say of 3 people)one of the partners loves the two others, but it is not necessarily so (and the chance is not so big) that the two other partners each also love the two other partners. While it is not impossible, it is not every likely either, and the more partners, the more chance of inequality.

The same holds for children. The chanceof conflict in a ‘marriage’ of 3 partners is much higher than in the case of 2 partners, and so is the chance of children being harmed in any way.
There is also a very practical side to it: in case of divorce: what about the children? Etc.

So, these are a few reasons why I think marriage between two partners is to be preferred.

How can you prove that these arguments are anything more than your opinion that is based on your system of morals, which is exactly what you accuse us of? A better question would be how can you deny partnerships of more than 3 people based on those opinions? Do you have any studies that compare 2 person relationships to relationships with more people? You talk about a higher “chance for conflict”, yet I doubt you have any proof for this. Someone could argue that these relationships would be better for children as their would be more adults to turn to for help as well as more adults to help provide for the kids. And why would divorce be any more of an issue for these relationships? Custody might get a little complicated but there is no reason why the courts couldn’t handle that. You say that these reasons are just a few of the reasons why you support marriage between two people only so I’m curious to see if any of your other reasons are anything more than your opinions and how you can accept denying the rights of people who wish to live in these relationships based on the reasons you have given me.

I mean think about how wonderful it would be for women if two women were able to both have thriving careers and at the same time have a family because when one was at work the other could be with the kids and so on. There would be a guy in the relationships as well so the kids were not deprived of a fatherly influence.

 

[SteveGC]

I am disputing the right of one religious group to impose their rules onto others because they believe their truth is the only truth. I do not oppose rational arguments.

Why is it that when a person, who derives their system of morality from a belief in God, stands up to defend a particular legal issue, they are “imposing their rules onto others”? But when the atheist, who doesn’t know where his/her system of morality is derived from, stands up to defend a particular legal issue, it’s suddenly not an imposition, but rather, a “rational argument”?

This type of hypocrisy reveals ignorance in how human beings formulate their beliefs. It’s as if, because you’re atheist, you get to claim you have “rational” beliefs and “rational” arguments. And you get to do this because you think that so long as you cannot determine where your sense of morality comes from, you are free to argue your case without being challenged about your “imposition” of your beliefs onto others.

Look, the atheist activist and the theist activist both impose their beliefs into any debate which seeks to define and express moral issues. Your vote for same sex marriage is an imposition of your rules (beliefs) onto me and every other person in this country who believes it is immoral. You know, what if our religion taught us that same-sex marriage was a moral act? Would you claim that we are “imposing” our rules on others by arguing in town square in support of same sex marriage? I highly doubt it. Why? Because you are in agreement with that position. As soon as we disagree with your position, however, you throw out the “imposition” flag. What nonsense. If murder became legal in this country, we would argue against it ultimately because of our Christian belief that it is immoral. Would you claim we were imposing our rules on others to argue against murder for that reason? Or would you be okay because you agree murder is wrong?

The “imposition” argument is at best naive, and at worst underhanded trickery.