Gay And Interracial Marriage

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1287394493' post='2180307']
Thank you for admitting I out-assed you.
[/quote]

Definitely. Next time try out-arguing me.

[MichaelFilo]

This is a rather silly question. We know that the state governments have every right to define marriage as they please. However, because interracial marriage must necessarily reduce people to groups rather than individuals it cannot have same legality based on our individual liberty system.

As to the matter of what ought they do, they ought not define marriage at all. A state that can define marriage can redefine marriage. Marriages should be removed from the legal realm, including any benefits. The state, by subsidizing married couples has done quite a bit to hurt it. Marriage should not have financial incentives because those are no basis for a marriage. Why should people with the ability to get married be subsidized by those who do not have such an ability (ie. socially unlikely.) With that being said, removal of the definition of marriage from the state's powers would remove any hope of redefinition. If today a homosexual gets married in some country where it is legal all others must recognize such a marriage. In a state that would have no such laws about marriage altogether, he may claim he is married but it would not have the full force of the state. Marriage, then, would return to the free market. In the free market different marriages would have different values. With the high divorce rate of homosexuals and the promiscuity admitted openly by homosexuals (Stoltenberg "How men have (a) sex," he is openly homosexual.) Protestant marriages, because they allow for divorce will be of less value than muslim ones, which are much less likely to end in divorce. Then Orthodox marriages, then Catholic marriages. As it stands today we have created economic incentives for marriage and a state that can define marriage. The former creates problems by making more marriages seem profitable based solely on economics (marriage has built-in incentives that need not be conferred by the state) and the latter makes the definition of marriage subject to the morals of the voting populace. Both are dangerous precedents, but both are legal under our constitution.

The federal government has no right to define marriage.

[MithLuin]

To the contrary, the government has a responsibility to define and encourage marriage. Marriage is the relationship by which children come into the world [i]and are raised by their parents[/i]. If marriage weren't defined, then parental rights and responsibilities wouldn't be defined, either.

If that doesn't lead to the collapse of a society, then I don't know what does.

[MichaelFilo]

Why can people not define those relationships devoid of marriage. We can have a separate set of parental rights that do not recognize marriage (today we do as can be seen by anyone who has children out of wedlock.) Any issues other than children can be clarified by a contract between the two parties at marriage. The contract would have no normative claims, simply a list of rules and regulations on the partnership. It's hardly a collapse of society when marriage returns to the province of the churches. The state which has the power to define something has the power to redefine something. We have foolishly put that power in the hands of a majority, and wherever the winds sway, so too will the definition.

Edited October 18, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1287407663' post='2180331']
Definitely. Next time try out-arguing me.
[/quote]
That would imply you actually had an argument to begin with.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1287417140' post='2180372']
To the contrary, the government has a responsibility to define and encourage marriage. Marriage is the relationship by which children come into the world [i]and are raised by their parents[/i]. If marriage weren't defined, then parental rights and responsibilities wouldn't be defined, either.

If that doesn't lead to the collapse of a society, then I don't know what does.
[/quote]
The Church agrees.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url]

I urge everyone debating this issue to read the entire document.

[MichaelFilo]

I don't know if the Church agrees that it is a government's responsibility to define marriage. Rather, it is the responsibility to not allow inaccurate definitions. An obvious solution is to remove this faculty from the state's powers. Marriage would then be left up to the churches. After all, where would homosexuals get married if not in a court? The answer is, nowhere. They would be partners, contractually.

I don't see this document from the Church supporting any view that the state must define anything. I am quite content in having no state definition. The risk of one is what we have today, a perversion of the definition so great that it is morally repulsive and what is worse, will have all the sanctions of the state.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287443092' post='2180527']
I don't know if the Church agrees that it is a government's responsibility to define marriage. Rather, it is the responsibility to not allow inaccurate definitions. An obvious solution is to remove this faculty from the state's powers. Marriage would then be left up to the churches. After all, where would homosexuals get married if not in a court? The answer is, nowhere. They would be partners, contractually.

I don't see this document from the Church supporting any view that the state must define anything. I am quite content in having no state definition. The risk of one is what we have today, a perversion of the definition so great that it is morally repulsive and what is worse, will have all the sanctions of the state.
[/quote]
The CDF document states in the conclusion:

"The common good[b] requires[/b] that[b] laws recognize, promote and protect marriage[/b] as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society."

Laws cannot recognize, promote, and protect marriage without having some kind of definition of marriage.

The Church certainly doesn't take the stance that civil law should simply have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever.

[MichaelFilo]

Oh, no disagreement there, that it does not take the stance I take. But laws that recognize, promote, and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society do not indicate that there must be a law (singular) that defines, recognizes, and protects marriage. In fact, the best protection a law may give in a society which becomes increasingly democratic and increasingly liberal is to not define marriage at all. You see, if the state limit's it's jurisdiction and puts marriage outside of that jurisdiction, then marriage will more likely survive in the face of a liberal voting bloc and judges. As long as it remains within it's power then the state has the ability to redefine marriage unfavorably .

If it puts marriage outside of it's jurisdiction in the face of a socially liberal voting bloc then we can say that the "laws recognize, promote and protect marriage." Why? Because they allow marriage to be recognized, promoted, and protected by the Church. Civil courts would not be able to call anyone married. The other benefit, of course, is that it would be in line with our libertarian foundational principals.

Now, the issue of whether this is even within the church's jurisdiction is also questionable. After all, it can talk about faith and morals but it has no jurisdiction over sound political philosophy, only on what the aims of political philosophy should be. It can say that the preservation of marriage is a moral duty, it has no jurisdiction on how to get there. The Church has only looked like a fool when it steps outside of it's bounds, never when it speaks from it's place of authority. Note here Galileo, supporting Louis XVI, crowning Napoleon, etc. are examples of this phenomenon.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287509683' post='2180729']
Oh, no disagreement there, that it does not take the stance I take. But laws that recognize, promote, and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society do not indicate that there must be a law (singular) that defines, recognizes, and protects marriage. In fact, the best protection a law may give in a society which becomes increasingly democratic and increasingly liberal is to not define marriage at all. You see, if the state limit's it's jurisdiction and puts marriage outside of that jurisdiction, then marriage will more likely survive in the face of a liberal voting bloc and judges. As long as it remains within it's power then the state has the ability to redefine marriage unfavorably .

If it puts marriage outside of it's jurisdiction in the face of a socially liberal voting bloc then we can say that the "laws recognize, promote and protect marriage." Why? Because they allow marriage to be recognized, promoted, and protected by the Church. Civil courts would not be able to call anyone married. The other benefit, of course, is that it would be in line with our libertarian foundational principals.

Now, the issue of whether this is even within the church's jurisdiction is also questionable. After all, it can talk about faith and morals but it has no jurisdiction over sound political philosophy, only on what the aims of political philosophy should be. It can say that the preservation of marriage is a moral duty, it has no jurisdiction on how to get there. The Church has only looked like a fool when it steps outside of it's bounds, never when it speaks from it's place of authority. Note here Galileo, supporting Louis XVI, crowning Napoleon, etc. are examples of this phenomenon.
[/quote]
The current vote to legally define marriage as only between a man and a woman comes in order to protect this definition from attempts to legally re-define marriage to include same-sex couples.
If marriage is not properly defined legally, there is no way the law can recognize, promote, and protect it.

True marriage will survive regardless of what the law is; the question is whether the law will recognize, support, and protect it or not.
Giving marriage no legal recognition or support will not do anything to promote or protect it either, and will treat married couples no differently than those in a homosexual shack-up, or any other group of people living together. The end result is hardly better than recognizing "gay marriage."
In neither result would marriage between man and woman be given any particular legal recognition or support over other arrangements of people.

As this issue directly involves important moral principles, I don't think it's accurate to say that the Church has no competence to speak on this matter, and I certainly don't think the Church is acting foolishly in this case. The Church recognizes marriage as vital to the common good of society, and thus sees it as something worthy of recognition and support from the state.

(And what was wrong with supporting Louis XVI anyway?)

You might want to talk to Terra Firma on this issue, as she used to take the exact same position as yourself, but came to see the Church's stance as correct. She's had some interesting things to say on this topic on another website.

[MichaelFilo]

I am the most active anti-homosexual marriage guy on my college campus. I am not for gay marriage, nor will I ever be. The question is what is the best means to the end. The Church steps outside of it's bounds when it tries to dictate means, although some will find the suggestions helpful, they do not carry the weight of infallibility or even any weight of the teaching authority of the Church.

Marriage will be protected better by the Churches today than by the state today. By removing marriage from the state's jurisdiction it will go back to the only place it has ever made sense, within the religious context. Homosexuals will have to find churches that allow homosexuals to get married, and even if they do they do not have the support of anyone who does not recognize homosexuals as being capable of marriage. If the state were to redefine marriage, as it has in 4 states by court order, and more recently California, then you are forced to accept it by the full force of the state. I would rather individual liberty be the test, not state power, for validity of marriage. If gays pretend to be gay I am not forced to accept that, nor is anyone else. If the state says they are then I am legally bound to accept that. Worse still, I must subsidize their marriage by special tax breaks.

The only way the law can protect marriage in a society that constantly refers to itself as democratic rather than republican in government type is for the law to leave the realm of marriage. If the social liberal wind blows at least it won't get to use the state to enforce it's views.

[Winchester]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1287407663' post='2180331']
Definitely. Next time try out-arguing me.
[/quote]
You never argued. You snarked and posted tertiary sources. Your statements (not arguments) then were trounced by some polite people.

Were you arguing that you are 19? If so, then bravo.

[MithLuin]

[quote]If the social liberal wind blows at least it won't get to use the state to enforce its views. [/quote]

So you think that marriage in general will be protected and upheld in this environment without the force of law? Won't marriage simply become obsolete and optional, a quaint religious custom that has no 'real' meaning in the world or society?

The problem is ultimately society, not the laws or governments.

And the issue is not 'homosexual marriage' at all. There's no such thing as homosexual marriage, and legalizing that doesn't change the Church's teachings on marriage in any way. The issue is marriage itself as a societal institution, and it's been crumbling for years. This latest issue is not 'the' issue at all, and defining marriage as between a man and a woman will not fix the problems. No-fault divorce and the high rate of children born out of wedlock are serious issues in our society. How would outlawing civil marriage (or abolishing it all together) help to address these issues?

My students ask me if I want to have children. I point out that I am not married (pointing to my unadorned ring finger), and they often respond with a puzzled, 'So?' I have to stop and explain why it is important to me to be married before having children. In this climate...marriage needs all the props the state can provide.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1287543993' post='2180911']
So you think that marriage in general will be protected and upheld in this environment without the force of law? Won't marriage simply become obsolete and optional, a quaint religious custom that has no 'real' meaning in the world or society? [/quote]

Marriage is a religious institution, especially for Catholics. Marriage would not need to be upheld by the force of law (in an anarchical state you are still married.) Today marriage is optional, but for a practicing Christian it is necessary before having sexual intercourse and starting a family. Marriage is also something that is inherent to all cultures and was not some fiction of the state. It was not started by the state and does not need the state to enforce it. In fact, marriage will take up a higher place in society. As it stands today marriages fail at an alarming rate. Do you think the majority of these marriages are Christian marriages or purely marriages done in courts? The state has weakened the institution (as has the Church with annulments, but that is a separate issue.) The state's definition of marriage is contractual, ours is sacramental. This would have the practical effect of A) removing financial incentives to marry (incentives give you more of something, but that is never an indicator of quality and often brings in more of the worst.) We don't want people to marry for financial reasons because money is not a solid foundation. No one gets married purely for financial reasons, but it is an incentive. B) Returning marriages to the realm of the Church and the churches where it will be guarded more fervently. Do you think the state requires people to go through marriage courses like the Catholic and many other churches do? Do you think marriage councilling is recommended by the state before a divorce? No. Even protestants, who are contractual people, discourage divorce. C) It would bar the legitimacy of the state to be an enforcer of homosexual marriage.

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1287543993' post='2180911']
The problem is ultimately society, not the laws or governments. [/quote]

Society, I take it, is some sum of human nature. I agree, but the founding fathers had the wisdom of building a society around such a thing. We should continue in that wisdom. We should consider what are the best controls against human nature. A system of checks and balances were created for our government, and the free market is a system of checks and balances on consumer and companies (we don't have a fully free one today, but you get the idea.) Clearly, there is no check on the state's handing out of marriages or it's ability to define or redefine marriage. In the Church realm we have the scriptures and tradition that serve as checks against the prevailing winds. Some will not stick to their guns, but those churches always fall apart (Ex. Episcopal church, Anglican Church in England, most churches in Europe, etc.) Churches with no moral grounds serve no purpose in society and are ignored. Marriage, then, will be regulated by those Churches who defend the truth. Will it be sloppy? maybe. Will it be a greater safeguard than an electoral system defining marriage? Yes.

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1287543993' post='2180911']
And the issue is not 'homosexual marriage' at all. There's no such thing as homosexual marriage, and legalizing that doesn't change the Church's teachings on marriage in any way. The issue is marriage itself as a societal institution, and it's been crumbling for years. This latest issue is not 'the' issue at all, and defining marriage as between a man and a woman will not fix the problems. No-fault divorce and the high rate of children born out of wedlock are serious issues in our society. How would outlawing civil marriage (or abolishing it all together) help to address these issues?[/quote]

There will be homosexual marriage if the state defines it as such. I am glad you asked about the civil marriages. Just to reiterate, most marriages that fall apart are civil because they have no community backing like marriages within Churches, which are done with a community. Children out of wedlock will take more time but as marriage reinforces it's value in society (not as something to be ignored) and divorce rates drop (we'd stop looking at civil marriages) more people will seek to be married.

See the reality is that no time in history has marriage been enforced by the state, even if defined. The religious institutions have been enforcers of marriage. It is a modern phenomenon for the state to assume this role and we find that it is obviously horrid at it. You see how bad it is here, but look over at the[url="http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12553.html"]USSR.[/url] Look at Western countries in general where marriage is in the hands of the state. Now compare to societies where it is not the case, where religion remains the main arbiter of marriage. What the state calls marriage today is some far cry from what marriage is and we see what is wrong with the definition as it is. It is not simply a matter of "one man and one woman" as you said. It is the entirety of the system. Purely contractual marriages in front of a judge is not marriage at all. We've already let the state redefine it with drastic consequences. Why let it continue?

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1287543993' post='2180911']
My students ask me if I want to have children. I point out that I am not married (pointing to my unadorned ring finger), and they often respond with a puzzled, 'So?' I have to stop and explain why it is important to me to be married before having children. In this climate...marriage needs all the props the state can provide.
[/quote]

The state has redefined marriage as to make it irrelevant. The state is the source of most of the divorces too. It has done more to redefine and undermine marriage than any other entity.

[Socrates]

I honestly don't see how removing any recognition of marriage for civil law will actually do anything positively to strengthen or protect Christian marriage. Marriage and the family is something that should be recognized and supported by society. Removing any legal recognition or benefits for marriage period, will merely make raising a family more of a burden than it already is, and send the message that married life and the family is of no value at all to society.

Yes, there are plenty of problems with "civil marriages" and how our society currently views marriage, with easy no-fault divorce, but I don't think eliminating state recognition of marriage altogether will encourage more people to get married in the Church, or will somehow strengthen Christian marriages. It would merely help accelerate the trend of people simply shacking up in transient sexual relationships with not even a pretense of commitment. Even a secular civil marriage is better than an uncommitted shack-up (it's still messier to go through a divorce than to break up when no marriage was ever declared.)

Yes, we should work to restore the true meaning of marriage in society, but I don't think stripping all legal recognition or benefits from marriages will do anything at all to accomplish that end. It will merely make things more difficult for married couples.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Socrates