Gay And Interracial Marriage

[Jaime]

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1281875867' post='2157701']
Catholics should not try to separate God from morality in order to 'prove' their points. We must preach the words of life and God will do the rest. It has always been this way and it will not change. To say that we should try to prove the immorality without involving God is gravely erroneous, as if we think we can convert others without the working of the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]

Jesus_Lol isn't Catholic

[MithLuin]

I think that, when framing an argument, it makes sense to try to see the situation from the point of view of the other person. This will make it more likely that you can find a way to construct a persuasive argument. This does not mean that you should abandon your own world view to do so - to the contrary, you start where you think they are, and then demonstrate where you think things ought to go from there.

So, yes, you can't say 'It's immoral because God said so,' [i](and leave it at that)[/i] and expect someone who doesn't already share your view to agree with you. You haven't 'argued' anything, you've merely stated your view in a take-it-or-leave-it kind of way.

To suggest that morality should be ignored or thrown out when looking at legal questions is pretty much absurd. What is generally [i]meant[/i] is that ethics should be discussed in a way that is open to everyone. Meaning, not 'God said so' but [i]why[/i] something is wrong. Pope John Paul II often referred to Jesus' teachings on moral issues as a Christian [u]ethos[/u] - not a list of do's or don't's, but a right intention of the heart that will lead to right actions. When people request that we 'leave God out of it,' we cannot actually agree to do so. But we [i]can[/i] attempt to explain our point of view in a way that can be understood.

So, when discussing marriage laws, it is important to recognize how the law and civil society has viewed marriage historically. What is the government's interest in issuing marriage licenses, anyway? Clearly, it's mostly about property laws and the stability that families provide as the building blocks of society. If you are going to discuss the laws of the land, bringing that into the argument only makes sense. Do you have to end there? Do you have to keep your mouth shut about how God is the originator of marriage, and that we were created male and female for a purpose? Of course not. But it is true that you can't [i]just[/i] argue from the Bible if you are discussing the laws of the United States of America - because our legal system does not generally make a lot of references to what the Bible says.

So anyway, everyone agrees that murder is wrong, mostly because we all recognize that it wouldn't be nice for someone else to decide to take my own life away, so certainly I can't do that to others either. Is that the full reason? Of course not! It has a lot to do with the dignity of the human person, universal human rights, and how it is gravely wrong for anyone to 'play God' by ending someone else's life on purpose like that. And of course there is the fifth commandment. My point is that while there is general agreement that murder is wrong, there is not consistent or general agreement about [i]why[/i] it is wrong, because your average person never really thinks about it.

(Incidentally, your average person never thinks about why heaven would be a good place to be and hell would be bad...because if you don't even know what those words [i]mean,[/i] why would you be afraid of one and long for the other?)

Stuff that's obvious is difficult to 'prove' to anyone's satisfaction specifically [u]because[/u] it is self-evident. It's hard to come at the point of view where that wouldn't be true, so the argument looks like hopeless flailing.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's obvious and self-evident and what it has always meant in Western civilization for the past two millennia. Other relationships can exist and be defined and be deemed socially acceptable (or not) as the case may be, but 'marriage' means something in our language and cultural history that does [i]not[/i] include same sex relationships.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1281889538' post='2157775']
I think that, when framing an argument, it makes sense to try to see the situation from the point of view of the other person. This will make it more likely that you can find a way to construct a persuasive argument. This does not mean that you should abandon your own world view to do so - to the contrary, you start where you think they are, and then demonstrate where you think things ought to go from there.

So, yes, you can't say 'It's immoral because God said so,' [i](and leave it at that)[/i] and expect someone who doesn't already share your view to agree with you. You haven't 'argued' anything, you've merely stated your view in a take-it-or-leave-it kind of way.

To suggest that morality should be ignored or thrown out when looking at legal questions is pretty much absurd. What is generally [i]meant[/i] is that ethics should be discussed in a way that is open to everyone. Meaning, not 'God said so' but [i]why[/i] something is wrong. Pope John Paul II often referred to Jesus' teachings on moral issues as a Christian [u]ethos[/u] - not a list of do's or don't's, but a right intention of the heart that will lead to right actions. When people request that we 'leave God out of it,' we cannot actually agree to do so. But we [i]can[/i] attempt to explain our point of view in a way that can be understood.
[/quote]

exactly, thanks.

[Bennn]

But using arguments to convince others of your point is not the same as banning God from your arguments. Rather, His light should be the mould in which your arguments are formed.

[Jesus_lol]

When trying to teach someone who only knows french, you will not get far if you only speak in english.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281903823' post='2157835']
When trying to teach someone who only knows french, you will not get far if you only speak in english.
[/quote]

No one actually made the God said so thus it's wrong and that's that argument. Arguments from the Moral and Natural law were made. The 'Slippery Slope' argument was made. Even the argument from a purely scientific view based on survival of the fittest was made, as well as others.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281851103' post='2157634']
well, firstly i would say most incestuous relation ships involve neither full consent nor both partners being adults. [/quote]

I am talking about a consensual sexual relationship between two relatives.

A homosexual would argue that a grown man abusing a small boy is pedophilia, a warped and sick disorder that has nothing to do with homosexuality. So we can assume that an "incestual" would argue that an uncle abusing his young niece is pedophilia, a warped and sick disorder that has nothing to do with their familial relationship.

[quote]To some extent it could be argued that the production of children with serious mutations/disorders would be hurting others outside of the couple getting married. [/quote]

No, that could not be argued. Well, it could, but that argument would not get very far. To the secular world, children are a consequence of marriage rather than the purpose of marriage - a consequence that can be "planned" or controlled. Some people even have it in their minds that they are entitled to have children. That children would be a great addition to their perfect house and perfect car, making the couple's life all the more perfect and picturesque. You know what, I should correct myself: to the secular world, children are a consequence of [i]sex[/i]. And we all know what the secular world suggests to couples who do not want this consequence: contraceptives and or abortion. Do you see how the family is disintegrating? Many no longer see children as a blessing; many do not want children. If a married couple does not want to have children or does not have children, well that is perfectly acceptable. The world does not see marriage as based on one's desire to have children or on one's lack of desire to have children. Children are often thrown into the equation when it suits both spouses, when they should BE the equation. You see, then, that the legal approval of incestuous couples cannot be based on whether or not they reproduce. Who says they will have children? Or that they have to, or are expected to? You cannot tell a couple what they can and cannot do with their reproduction system! Shame on you! Besides, just like a homosexual couple, the incestuous couple can have an egg or sperm donor; or perhaps they can have numerous tests done to determine whether or not their future child(ren) will be healthy. Or perhaps the woman will get her tubes tied. Disturbingly, the couple can reply: So what? So what if my child will have a defect? Remember, many couples feel that they are entitled to children and that the government cannot interfere with their reproductive abilities.

There is something else you are missing, J_LOL. If the only drawback of legalized incestuous marriage is the fear that severely retarded children will be produced, and incestuous marriage is legalized on the premise that such couples cannot reproduce, then one must put the same "ban" on mentally retarded couples or make their unions unlawful, and one must also consider such a "ban" or unlawfulness of a marriage where one or both persons have a genetic disorder. Talk about a slippery slope.

[quote] And historically and in modern times, incest has been considered extremely taboo and more ripping of the social fabric than non-incestuous gay relationships, but again, not a very strong argument. [/quote]

In this day and age, "taboo" is subjective.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1281906848' post='2157843']
I am talking about a consensual sexual relationship between two relatives.

A homosexual would argue that a grown man abusing a small boy is pedophilia, a warped and sick disorder that has nothing to do with homosexuality. So we can assume that an "incestual" would argue that an uncle abusing his young niece is pedophilia, a warped and sick disorder that has nothing to do with their familial relationship.



No, that could not be argued. Well, it could, but that argument would not get very far. To the secular world, children are a consequence of marriage rather than the purpose of marriage - a consequence that can be "planned" or controlled. Some people even have it in their minds that they are entitled to have children. That children would be a great addition to their perfect house and perfect car, making the couple's life all the more perfect and picturesque. You know what, I should correct myself: to the secular world, children are a consequence of [i]sex[/i]. And we all know what the secular world suggests to couples who do not want this consequence: contraceptives and or abortion. Do you see how the family is disintegrating? Many no longer see children as a blessing; many do not want children. If a married couple does not want to have children or does not have children, well that is perfectly acceptable. The world does not see marriage as based on one's desire to have children or on one's lack of desire to have children. Children are often thrown into the equation when it suits both spouses, when they should BE the equation. You see, then, that the legal approval of incestuous couples cannot be based on whether or not they reproduce. Who says they will have children? Or that they have to, or are expected to? You cannot tell a couple what they can and cannot do with their reproduction system! Shame on you! Besides, just like a homosexual couple, the incestuous couple can have an egg or sperm donor; or perhaps they can have numerous tests done to determine whether or not their future child(ren) will be healthy. Or perhaps the woman will get her tubes tied. Disturbingly, the couple can reply: So what? So what if my child will have a defect? Remember, many couples feel that they are entitled to children and that the government cannot interfere with their reproductive abilities.

There is something else you are missing, J_LOL. If the only drawback of legalized incestuous marriage is the fear that severely retarded children will be produced, and incestuous marriage is legalized on the premise that such couples cannot reproduce, then one must put the same "ban" on mentally retarded couples or make their unions unlawful, and one must also consider such a "ban" or unlawfulness of a marriage where one or both persons have a genetic disorder. Talk about a slippery slope.



In this day and age, "taboo" is subjective.
[/quote]

A Good reply i hadnt thought to much farther along that particular path.

but you did sum up a good part of my argument with your last sentence there.
Did try and reply as honestly as i could with the first half of my response. I will be considering it more.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281920816' post='2157904']
but you did sum up a good part of my argument with your last sentence there.
[/quote]

I understand that you are arguing the secular standpoint, but if the summation of your argument is "the secular world has embraced relativism and one cannot truly oppose homosexual marriage in the face of relativism" then I have obliterated it. It is simply not possible to maintain that argument while simultaneously claiming that one cannot compare the legalization of homosexual marriage to the legalization of incestuous marriage, bestiality, or pedophilia. Why can one [i]not[/i] compare them? What moral standard are [i]you[/i] following when [i]you[/i] say that one cannot compare x with y, and how is that superior to the moral standard that claims x and y are comparable? and equally acceptable? According to relativism, both the above [so-called] moral standards are correct.

Perhaps the best way to refute the permissibility of homosexual marriage, incestuous marriage, bestiality, and pedophilia without including religion is to focus on the dignity of the human person, dignity that is not honored when an individual (1) acts contrary to nature (2) reduces sex into an act of perverse pleasure (3) degrades himself by fornicating with beasts; betrays his responsibility to protect lesser animals from cruelty as the superior animal ["superior" due to reason and intellect] (4) rejects his duty to protect other human persons, both physically and psychologically, a rejection of the preservation of the human species by destroying trust and violating the dignity between man and child [not to mention destroying the dignity of the child] (5) acting against the dignity of the human person by giving into selfish desires that harm others as well as the self (6) ruining the natural [i.e. designed by nature] roles of the family: father as protector, mother as nurturer, children as helpers and learners by fostering incestuous relationships which clouds the role of each person and disorders the family unit i.e. roles are no longer fulfilled or carried out properly, which in turn threatens the good of the human species.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' timestamp='1281851830' post='2157640']
I seek to impose my beliefs upon others, and I will vote accordingly.
[/quote]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1281906848' post='2157843']
There is something else you are missing, J_LOL. If the only drawback of legalized incestuous marriage is the fear that severely retarded children will be produced, and incestuous marriage is legalized on the premise that such couples cannot reproduce, then one must put the same "ban" on mentally retarded couples or make their unions unlawful, and one must also consider such a "ban" or unlawfulness of a marriage where one or both persons have a genetic disorder. Talk about a slippery slope.
[/quote]

Severe retardation is only one of many, many, many genetic problems in which consanginous reproduction can result; however consanginuity in itself does not guarantee any problems...just a high risk of getting two bad copies of a gene

And I think you made an excellent point about the still present 'taboo' of incest. In a way, the government is enacting a sort of legalized eugenics by making incest illegal. I see no purely secular argument against incest between two consenting adults. That said, it is patently obvious to me there is a moral and religious reason to be against incest.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1281925823' post='2157935']
I understand that you are arguing the secular standpoint, but if the summation of your argument is "the secular world has embraced relativism and one cannot truly oppose homosexual marriage in the face of relativism" then I have obliterated it. It is simply not possible to maintain that argument while simultaneously claiming that one cannot compare the legalization of homosexual marriage to the legalization of incestuous marriage, bestiality, or pedophilia. Why can one [i]not[/i] compare them? What moral standard are [i]you[/i] following when [i]you[/i] say that one cannot compare x with y, and how is that superior to the moral standard that claims x and y are comparable? and equally acceptable? According to relativism, both the above [so-called] moral standards are correct.
[/quote]

No, sorry you have not obliterated the argument as completely as you suggest. At this moment, a purely secular legal case against incest is beyond me, so i will concede the point.

However, Bestiality and Pedophilia have a rock-solid legal basis behind them being illegal, one that differs substantially from the argument against Gay Marriage. I already outlined this earlier.

[quote]
Perhaps the best way to refute the permissibility of homosexual marriage, incestuous marriage, bestiality, and pedophilia without including religion is to focus on the dignity of the human person, dignity that is not honored when an individual (1) acts contrary to nature (2) reduces sex into an act of perverse pleasure (3) degrades himself by fornicating with beasts; betrays his responsibility to protect lesser animals from cruelty as the superior animal ["superior" due to reason and intellect] (4) rejects his duty to protect other human persons, both physically and psychologically, a rejection of the preservation of the human species by destroying trust and violating the dignity between man and child [not to mention destroying the dignity of the child] (5) acting against the dignity of the human person by giving into selfish desires that harm others as well as the self (6) ruining the natural [i.e. designed by nature] roles of the family: father as protector, mother as nurturer, children as helpers and learners by fostering incestuous relationships which clouds the role of each person and disorders the family unit i.e. roles are no longer fulfilled or carried out properly, which in turn threatens the good of the human species.
[/quote]

I like this.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281938230' post='2158040']
No, sorry you have not obliterated the argument as completely as you suggest. At this moment, a purely secular legal case against incest is beyond me, so i will concede the point.[/quote]

You said that I summed up your argument with my sentence "In this day and age, 'taboo' is subjective". I then went on to explain how it is illogical for you to vehemently oppose bestiality but not homosexual marriage because, according to relativism (as you have taken the secularist standpoint), both can be rationalized to be acceptable. If you acknowledge that homosexual marriage and bestiality are "taboo" and therefore subjective, you cannot objectively assert that homosexual marriage is permissible whereas bestiality is not. Your very argument is subjective.

[quote] However, Bestiality and Pedophilia have a rock-solid legal basis behind them being illegal, one that differs substantially from the argument against Gay Marriage. I already outlined this earlier.[/quote]

Is it really rock-solid? After all, homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder. Just look how the times have changed.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1281939693' post='2158047']
You said that I summed up your argument with my sentence "In this day and age, 'taboo' is subjective". I then went on to explain how it is illogical for you to vehemently oppose bestiality but not homosexual marriage because, according to relativism (as you have taken the secularist standpoint), both can be rationalized to be acceptable. If you acknowledge that homosexual marriage and bestiality are "taboo" and therefore subjective, you cannot objectively assert that homosexual marriage is permissible whereas bestiality is not. Your very argument is subjective.
[/quote]

Actually at first my desire was to point out that legally there is no comparison between gay marriage and pedo/bestiality. I dont believe there is a valid comparison morally either, but that was beside the point.

There are many reasons why legally bestiality and pedophilia are illegal, besides merely that they are taboo. Pedophilia especially cannot be rationalized to be acceptable. It involves hurting another person, one who is defenseless, physically and emotionally. It cannot possibly be consensual because a child cannot consent to such things.

for fun, I have been experimenting with arguing the pure secular standpoint(which i am not too familiar with, so not very well), because as soon as morality is introduced it becomes a very subjective argument. One that is unavoidable, because to some extent law must reflect morality to function. However, how can a court decide which one of a billion moral "traditions" or "truths" (to account for the many beliefs, many of which can be logically broken down, and differ in outcome based on the entirely subjective assumptions at their base)

Where possible, why not avoid that and deal with pure law?

[quote]
Is it really rock-solid? After all, homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder. Just look how the times have changed.
[/quote]

I also used to be a lot shorter.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281942170' post='2158053']
Actually at first my desire was to point out that legally there is no comparison between gay marriage and pedo/bestiality. I dont believe there is a valid comparison morally either, but that was beside the point.

There are many reasons why legally bestiality and pedophilia are illegal, besides merely that they are taboo. Pedophilia especially cannot be rationalized to be acceptable. It involves hurting another person, one who is defenseless, physically and emotionally. It cannot possibly be consensual because a child cannot consent to such things.

for fun, I have been experimenting with arguing the pure secular standpoint(which i am not too familiar with, so not very well), because as soon as morality is introduced it becomes a very subjective argument. One that is unavoidable, because to some extent law must reflect morality to function. However, how can a court decide which one of a billion moral "traditions" or "truths" (to account for the many beliefs, many of which can be logically broken down, and differ in outcome based on the entirely subjective assumptions at their base)

Where possible, why not avoid that and deal with pure law?



I also used to be a lot shorter.
[/quote]

From a pure secular standpoint Law simply reflects the culture or the rulers of the culture, and thus would be quite subjective and relative. Pedophilia 'can' and has been rationalized to be acceptable. Quite a few cultures in the history of man have legally allowed and encouraged it, even zoophilia/bestiality has in times past been rationalized to be acceptable and well within the law. "Pure Law" is subjective, legally Jews, Blacks, and the unborn have been/are declared legally non-persons. And by "Pure Law" those non-person persons have legally been mass murdered and enslaved.

Law built upon subjective morality and not the Moral Law is subjective law, not [i]pure law[/i], and can be changed to reflect the wishes of the people or the rulers. You cannot rip God out of the equation of right and wrong and then replace Him with "pure law" or science. Such an effort is in vain and quite illogical.

Edited August 16, 2010 by KnightofChrist