Gay And Interracial Marriage

[MichaelFilo]

You are insisting that what legally constitutes marriage today resembles any kind of Catholic conception of marriage. With divorce being on-demand and in some places marriage legally recognized as a right between same sex couples I would argue what the state defines as marriage today is not marriage at all because it lacks indissolubility, is not between two people of the opposite sex, and has no relation to procreation. Sure, you can call it marriage, but it hardly is any marriage at all.

The goal is not to get more people married in the Church, although that will be the net effect because marriages will only be provided by the churches, the goal is to protect marriage. Right now homosexuals just shack up. As it is going, soon they will be recognized by the state too. I suppose that is better than them just shacking up? The reality is that civil marriage is becoming less and less like Catholic marriage. Besides, I'm not interested in people huddling together under something called marriage for the sake of calling it marriage. Shacking up is exactly what they are doing when you consider it is a financially intelligent move that is breakable at any time and has no relation to child bearing. Calling it marriage doesn't protect the institution.

Legal benefits to marriage are incentives. An incentive gives you more of something because people want the benefits of the incentive. For instance, if I wanted more people to take nude photos for me for a magazine, because no one wants to do it for free, I give them some sort of payment as part of the offer. People who would not do it before would do it for the money, with no interest towards the art. Some will do it partially for the money and partially for the art.

Similarly, by offering an incentive society gets some people who marry specifically for the incentives (making someone legal, providing tax cuts, importing family, etc.) and some because a combination of the two, that is, for marriages sake and for some incentive. Removing incentives gives you less of something, but we want more marriages for the right reasons.


See, the basic fact of life I've learned is that the higher we set the bar for anything the more it becomes coveted. People want social recognition of marriage and they can get that through the state. Removing the state would mean that they would have to go to their churches for that recognition. It means that marriage will be constricted by the requirements of the churches. In the free market of marriages the Catholic marriage will be held in highest esteem, because it does not allow for divorce. It will be the ideal.

Essentially, what the state provides today is not marriage in any Christian sense. It is a partnership, but we have let them call it marriage. In doing so, we are watching as the institution is crashing and burning. The final nail will be homosexual marriages and then the other combinations which come. Rather, let the state get out of the businesses and relinquish that right to the churches who are much better at defending marriage.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287749855' post='2181555']
You are insisting that what legally constitutes marriage today resembles any kind of Catholic conception of marriage. With divorce being on-demand and in some places marriage legally recognized as a right between same sex couples I would argue what the state defines as marriage today is not marriage at all because it lacks indissolubility, is not between two people of the opposite sex, and has no relation to procreation. Sure, you can call it marriage, but it hardly is any marriage at all.

The goal is not to get more people married in the Church, although that will be the net effect because marriages will only be provided by the churches, the goal is to protect marriage. Right now homosexuals just shack up. As it is going, soon they will be recognized by the state too. I suppose that is better than them just shacking up? The reality is that civil marriage is becoming less and less like Catholic marriage. Besides, I'm not interested in people huddling together under something called marriage for the sake of calling it marriage. Shacking up is exactly what they are doing when you consider it is a financially intelligent move that is breakable at any time and has no relation to child bearing. Calling it marriage doesn't protect the institution.[/quote]
If you read this thread, you'll note the whole debate from my side is [i]against[/i] state recognition of homosexual "marriages." "Marriages" between persons of the same sex are not recognized in most states, and it's our goal to keep it that way.

I don't think the state not legally recognizing any marriages period will do anything to make the situation better. It will simply punish people in real marriages raising children.
The indissolubility of marriage is something that needs to be restored in our society, but I don't think removing any legal recognition of marriage will help solve the problem. People will get divorced just as much if the state does not recognize marriage, or will simply not get married all, and live in in a series of unmarried shack-ups. I don't see that as a huge improvement in the situation.

[quote]Legal benefits to marriage are incentives. An incentive gives you more of something because people want the benefits of the incentive. For instance, if I wanted more people to take nude photos for me for a magazine, because no one wants to do it for free, I give them some sort of payment as part of the offer. People who would not do it before would do it for the money, with no interest towards the art. Some will do it partially for the money and partially for the art.

Similarly, by offering an incentive society gets some people who marry specifically for the incentives (making someone legal, providing tax cuts, importing family, etc.) and some because a combination of the two, that is, for marriages sake and for some incentive. Removing incentives gives you less of something, but we want more marriages for the right reasons. [/quote]
In reality, the financial incentives to marry are small enough that I doubt anybody today gets married primarily for tax cuts or whatever. All the tax cuts do is ease the financial burden of raising a family. In current society, raising a family is primarily a financial burden, and, like the Church, I think it right that society support the family by helping ease that financial burden. There's nothing virtuous about making marriage and family unduly financially burdensome.

Your argument concerning incentives is an extremely weak and unconvincing one.


[quote]See, the basic fact of life I've learned is that the higher we set the bar for anything the more it becomes coveted. People want social recognition of marriage and they can get that through the state. Removing the state would mean that they would have to go to their churches for that recognition. It means that marriage will be constricted by the requirements of the churches. In the free market of marriages the Catholic marriage will be held in highest esteem, because it does not allow for divorce. It will be the ideal.

Essentially, what the state provides today is not marriage in any Christian sense. It is a partnership, but we have let them call it marriage. In doing so, we are watching as the institution is crashing and burning. The final nail will be homosexual marriages and then the other combinations which come. Rather, let the state get out of the businesses and relinquish that right to the churches who are much better at defending marriage.[/quote]
I see absolutely no evidence that if we removed all state recognition of marriage, or even abolished civil marriage, that the people getting civil marriages would start flocking to have true indissoluble marriages in the Catholic Church. Those people not interested in real commitment would simply not bother to get married at all, or, if they feel inclined to get married, can marry in any number of protestant churches that provide easy divorce. (Since the divorce rate among Catholics is now as high as the general population, obviously many Catholics aren't doing their job in this regard either.) Heck, there are already plenty of liberal protestant denominations happy to perform "gay marriage" ceremonies.

The "free market of marriages" as you call it already exists, as people are perfectly free to marry in the Catholic Church, and to have true, permanent marriages. Non one's forcing them to do otherwise. The truth is, many people are unwillingly to live up to this high ideal of marriage, and choose otherwise. In this "free market," people will often choose what is convenient or easy for their selfish desires, rather than choose the straight and narrow path. There are serious issues in our culture that need to be fixed, and will certainly not be fixed simply by "getting the state out of marriage."

You should re-read that CDF document by Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope). I don't think he's a fool whose words on this subject can be lightly dismissed.

[Winchester]

Since single people are taxed at a higher rate than married, this is an issue. Remove that little bit of socialism and the entire argument it done. If I choose to not seek state licensing of my marriage, why should I be penalized?

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1287768989' post='2181598']
If you read this thread, you'll note the whole debate from my side is [i]against[/i] state recognition of homosexual "marriages." "Marriages" between persons of the same sex are not recognized in most states, and it's our goal to keep it that way.

I don't think the state not legally recognizing any marriages period will do anything to make the situation better. It will simply punish people in real marriages raising children.
The indissolubility of marriage is something that needs to be restored in our society, but I don't think removing any legal recognition of marriage will help solve the problem. People will get divorced just as much if the state does not recognize marriage, or will simply not get married all, and live in in a series of unmarried shack-ups. I don't see that as a huge improvement in the situation.
[/quote]

You and I are both against homosexual marriages, but you believe the state is the best means to the end, and I see it for the failure it is.

Obviously you are against it, but the state, in a democratic society, is at the whims of the people. The more power you give the state, the more power it has to enforce the moods, feelings, thoughts of the era. The less power it has, the less ability it has. As it stands today the Church requires that you get married in a court of law, as does any other church. This means that Catholic marriage or any marriage is tied to the state.

Having people "shack-up" is necessary, as it shows what State-recognized marriage is, a sham. Long term prospects are better, however, as people want the surety of marriage. As it stands, a confusion existence where there is a link between what the state calls marriage and what the Church calls marriage. If it is shown that what the state calls marriage is not marriage at all, but a temporary shack-up, then you will reignite that longing in people to be with one partner for life.

Beyond that, the State will always dictate what is socially acceptable. As long as the state's version of marriage is acceptable, expect the consequences. Removing the power of marriage from the State will return that standard back to the churches, who, while not perfect, are much more concerned with the sanctity of marriage.

I disagree divorces will be near where they are. All purely legal marriages will cease to exist, and so will their divorces.
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1287768989' post='2181598']
In reality, the financial incentives to marry are small enough that I doubt anybody today gets married primarily for tax cuts or whatever. All the tax cuts do is ease the financial burden of raising a family. In current society, raising a family is primarily a financial burden, and, like the Church, I think it right that society support the family by helping ease that financial burden. There's nothing virtuous about making marriage and family unduly financially burdensome.

Your argument concerning incentives is an extremely weak and unconvincing one.
[/quote]

There are a numerous amount of incentives, not the only financial. If you are concerned with child care, we already give tax exemptions for children. I do take note with you saying there is nothing virtuous about making marriage and family unduly financially burdensome. I don't see how not incentivising marriage is unduly financially burdensome. If you think the financial advantages are not so important then simply look to see what it is gays are protesting when it comes to not being able to legally marry. Finances are on the list.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1287768989' post='2181598']
I see absolutely no evidence that if we removed all state recognition of marriage, or even abolished civil marriage, that the people getting civil marriages would start flocking to have true indissoluble marriages in the Catholic Church. Those people not interested in real commitment would simply not bother to get married at all, or, if they feel inclined to get married, can marry in any number of protestant churches that provide easy divorce. (Since the divorce rate among Catholics is now as high as the general population, obviously many Catholics aren't doing their job in this regard either.) Heck, there are already plenty of liberal protestant denominations happy to perform "gay marriage" ceremonies.

The "free market of marriages" as you call it already exists, as people are perfectly free to marry in the Catholic Church, and to have true, permanent marriages. Non one's forcing them to do otherwise. The truth is, many people are unwillingly to live up to this high ideal of marriage, and choose otherwise. In this "free market," people will often choose what is convenient or easy for their selfish desires, rather than choose the straight and narrow path. There are serious issues in our culture that need to be fixed, and will certainly not be fixed simply by "getting the state out of marriage."

You should re-read that CDF document by Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope). I don't think he's a fool whose words on this subject can be lightly dismissed.
[/quote]

It is not a short process, but people desire life long marriages. If all the purely legal marriages are set aside, that is a large chunk of divorces. I would rather those not interested in commitment not get married at all. That is desirable. Gay marriage by any group is funny but pointless without state recognition because the people at large don't recognize it. I was living with two lesbians who were "married" in California back in '08 and even though they thought they were married no one recognized it. People just don't believe they can be married without the force of the state. This is why they always talk about how unfair it is, because that is where they get the support. It would be like a gay married couple coming from England to visit, their married status would have no meaning here and they would not be treated as a couple.

The "free market of marriages" exists, but there is no government to circumvent fraud which is the legitimate role of government in the free market. In fact, they are the fraudsters, selling government unions and calling them marriages, and then backing them up with their legal power.

Vatican documents never discuss libertarian solutions. The Vatican has only two modes of viewing political power, either they are in power or their enemies are in power. They have never taken the view that political power should be limited until subsidiarity became a rallying cry for them (they often advocated large states as long as they supported the Church.) Now, the Church is losing the culture wars in some places, I am only doing what the Church found prudent when it found itself dealing with large states that were anti-Catholic, calling for limitations on them. This is just one more step in limiting the secular state.

[MithLuin]

I am confused why you think that people who get married in the Catholic Church (or other churches) don't get divorced. I think that if you look at the divorce rate, you'll find maybe a higher incidence of divorces from the judge/court 'civil' weddings, but you are hardly going to find a dearth of divorces among Americans who get married in a church.

Also, many non-church weddings are presided over by a minister of some sort, not a judge.

[Winchester]

Maybe you're confused because you don't understand the difference between being married in the Church and being married in a church.

Also, who said people won't get divorced?

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems like i read that the divorce rate is the same for christians, as it is for nonchristians. either that, or that the crime rate is the same among them. either of which isn't too good.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1287869696' post='2181894']
it seems like i read that the divorce rate is the same for christians, as it is for nonchristians. either that, or that the crime rate is the same among them. either of which isn't too good.
[/quote]
Yeah. Logically, one or the other is going to be the same.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure why one would say that that's a logical necessity. if i'm reading that right. it's a disappointment is what is is... chrisitans should be showing virtue, either in crime, marriage, everything etc.

[Winchester]

You made the assertion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

im going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and say i don't understand what is being said andor argued. oh well

Edited October 24, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[MithLuin]

Statistics rather than sniping:

General, overall divorce rates for America:

[quote]According to enrichment journal on the divorce rates in America, the divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%; the divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%; the divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%. According to discovery channel, couples with children have a slightly lower rate of divorce than childless couples. Sociologists believe that childlessness is also a common cause of divorce. The absence of children leads to loneliness and weariness and even in the United States; at least 66 per cent of all divorced couples are childless. According to some experts, however, divorce rates tend to go down primarily because more couples live together without marrying.

[url=http://marriage101.org/divorce-rates-in-america/](source)[/url] - sorry if it's a bit sketchy[/quote]

The name of the research that said Christians have a divorce rate just as high as everyone else in America is the Barna report. And, actually, what is says is that the fundamentalist/born-again Christian groups have rates around 30%. Catholics were on the lower end of the scale at 21%, though Lutherans and atheists/agnostics were the same. Mormons weren't even polled. That was a single study, and sweeping conclusions probably shouldn't be drawn from it. Like any sociological study, you have to be sure to normalize for socio-economic status, or it's meaningless. Age at which the couple married is also significant, as is which geographic area of the country we're talking about.

[url=http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml]More statistics[/url]

I think that programs that are in place to help couples build a strong marriage are helpful (such as pre-marital counseling). [url=http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/February/As-Pastors-Unite-for-Marriage-Divorce-Rate-Plunges-/]Here[/url] is an article about one area of the US where the divorce rate went way down over a 10 year period. It also is an area where the local churches worked hard on their pre-marriage counseling/mentoring. Perhaps that's correlation (not causation), but areas that don't yet do that could certainly try.

[WarriorForJesus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1281038780' post='2152826']
and while i dont think marriage is a right, per the state, if the government does start calling it a right, as it did with interracial marraige, that opens a new can of worms, per precedent.

for those who support the right ot ban gay marraige, but think states can't ban interracial marraige... id like to hear your reasoning, or for you to state that you hold this view.

for those who think states can ban interracial marraiges, id like for you to have the cajones to state this view. and reasoning is secondarly important.
[/quote]


[color="#800080"]I believe the state has the right to ban homosexual marriages, whether of one race, or interracial.

When people compare the civil rights fight of the African-Americans in the middle part of the 20th century to the pushing of the homosexual agenda on America in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as being pretty much the same thing, those people are using a disingenous claim.

People are not given a chance to chose who their parents are, what race they are to join by birth. People are not forced to be homosexual, it is a choice, not a twist of fate.

I am Caucasian. I was born to 2 caucasian parents. All of my siblings are also caucasian. We are all caucasian by fate decreeing us to be.

I am not homosexual, I am not sexual at all, because I choose to be celibate. I've no husband at the present time.

I am Caucasian by birth, and celibate by choice.

As long as there is one human man who is an adult and one human woman who is an adult, who are not related closely, who are each wanting to be married to the other, nothing should stop them. If there are 2 human men, or 2 human women who want to be married, they should not be allowed to be; they are homosexual by choice.

Janice[/color]

[Hinter dem Horizont]

The way I look at it, is that, yes, gay couples can get married. But, not in a Roman Catholic Church. The Church defines marriage as between a "husband and wife", "man and woman". So, as the above person stated, they CHOSE to be homosexual, therefore they need to accept the consequences of their choice. If they want to get married, then let them go to a civil court to do so.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Hinter dem Horizont

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Hinter dem Horizont' timestamp='1290301863' post='2188279']
The way I look at it, is that, yes, gay couples can get married. But, not in a Roman Catholic Church. The Church defines marriage as between a "husband and wife", "man and woman". So, as the above person stated, they CHOSE to be homosexual, therefore they need to accept the consequences of their choice. If they want to get married, then let them go to a civil court to do so.
[/quote]


I refuse to destroy the name of the institution that God ordained by calling what two fornicators want to do marriage. Their acts are an abomination and should in no way be associated with marriage, whether in the courts, in a church, or anywhere. They cannot get married. They can call it that all they want, trying to take over the language and legitimize abomination. I will not be party to it and neither should any Christian. In the end marriage will be undermined.