Gay And Interracial Marriage

[MithLuin]

I think that people pose (and answer) theoretical questions on this site without suggesting that such actions would be desirous. Meaning, you can ask 'Is it acceptable to burn heretics at the stake?' and consider the theological and legal implications. Even if someone were to answer in the affirmative...that doesn't mean they are actually advocating that anyone do such a thing.

So, I would say that someone has interpreted the question as, 'Can the government pass laws restricting marriage?' and thus answered in the affirmative. After all, all states have laws forbidding incestuous and underage marriage, though what counts as too young or too closely related varies a bit.

That doesn't mean that interracial marriages [i]should[/i] be banned; it would be up to people to make sure that such prejudiced laws do not get passed. But that wouldn't be because the government has no power to pass such a law. See the difference?

And, yes, we might just have a couple of trolls around...

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1281307436' post='2154308']
I know that the Church position on gays, pedos and bestiality is that they are all bad sins, but you cant really compare gay marriage to child molestation. certainly not legally. Two gay guys marrying is an act between two consenting legal adults. Children are not adults, obviously and as such cannot consent to a sexual relationship. same thing with the farmyard romancing. it just aint the same.
[/quote]

Why do you assume "gay marriage" will be restricted to unions between [b]two[/b] adults?

Can't in some states, 30 year old men marry girls even below the age of 17? Many Catholic Priest seduced 14 and 16 year old boys. You can google the "Twink" fetish, that some male homosexuals have. It's not necessarily limited to minors, but its a preference for males that look like teenagers or young men in their early 20's. As opposed to "Bears."

Heterosexuals are not free of sexual fetishes either. Heterosexuals can have some pretty "deep" sexual sins too. I think heterosexual serial rapists that torture, maim, and murder women are far more sinful than consenting homosexual affairs, even between a 16 year old boy and say... a 27 year old man.

Marriage, however, is a specific concept. It's a concept supposing the contractual union of man and woman, and it involves property rights. "Dating" - a relatively new concept in the world - is not civil marriage. Of course for Catholics marriage is more than contractual, it is sacramental, or that is to say, outward visible signs that reveal a greater unseen truth.

As the concepts of "freedom" goes, some political philosophers distinguish between "negative" and "positive" concepts of freedom.

The negativist concept is predicated on rational men (inferring the educated and sane) being free [i]from [/i]interference to do z.

The positivist view of freedom is that a man is free [i]to do[/i] z, so long as he properly developed in required character traits and has good moral shaping. The man essentially must be "self realizing," so-to-speak.

The Nazi's and Soviet empire as well as nations under Islamic law, supposedly, would be examples of the positive concept of freedom. The lack of interference of the state to restrict the women of Rio de Janeiro from dressing scantly would be a an example of the negative concept of freedom.

Children (the number 18 is arbitrary, it could be moved up to 25 with will and majority consent) are considered people that are not self realizing, hence the positive concept of freedom is applied to them when legislating what they can and can't do - sexually or otherwise.


[b]Conclusion:[/b]

In my opinion, disallowing gay marriage is not restricting freedom of adults or minors. Now, I think keeping or creating sodomy laws, and enforcing them, would be restricting freedom. Marriage is not reducible as a social concept, to the biological ability to have sexual intercourse, nor can any civil court quantify "love," a much over used word.

I also think most medical and inheritance issues for homosexual couples can be resolved with wills.

[desertwoman]

I always thought that marriage in antiquity was seen as a business and legacy deal (dowrys and making sure this family lineage is going on strong).

I have a question. Do you think marriage went awry when more people wanted to marry for love and not a business or legacy venture?

[OraProMe]

I think y'all should just give me my husband and my baby.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='desertwoman' timestamp='1284904354' post='2174527']
I always thought that marriage in antiquity was seen as a business and legacy deal (dowrys and making sure this family lineage is going on strong).

I have a question. Do you think marriage went awry when more people wanted to marry for love and not a business or legacy venture?
[/quote]

Well, as Dietrich von Hildebrand fought so strongly to clarify, the [i]meaning[/i] of marriage is love, while the [i]purposes [/i]of marriage are mutual support and the begetting, raising and education of children.

As we can see today, people are trying to separate the [i]meaning[/i] of marriage from the [i]purpose[/i] of marriage. That doesn't turn out very well.

Additionally, I think a lot of people don't have an accurate concept of what "love" is, and instead confuse its core meaning with some lesser form of love.

There's nothing wrong with marrying someone you're not "in love" with. In fact, such marriages, often found in Indian arranged marriages, can be very strong. Indian couples often develop a love over time, [i]after[/i] they've already been married. That said, I'm not in favor of arranged marriages.

I think the attempt to de-couple the "love" (true love) aspects and the "practical" aspects of marriage is the main reason the current understanding and practice of marriage went awry. Love and practical reasons can easily go hand in hand, but the attempt to completely separate and compartmentalize them, as we see so often today, will always go awry. Then again, I'm not sure that you can look through history and honestly call a lot of the adulterous relationships among royalty (often business and legacy ventures combined) "strong marriages."

~Sternhauser

Edited September 19, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1283829379' post='2169043']
Five people voted that states should have the right to ban interracial marriage. FIVE PEOPLE. Either PM has a serious troll problem or there are some horrible, horrible people on this site.
[/quote]

Rizz, the question was "Constitutionally speaking, do the [i]States[/i] have the right to ban gay or interracial marriage." Take a look at Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (enumerated powers of the Federal State: if the power ain't enumerated, the power don't exist) and you show me were the Federal State has the power to prohibit States from prohibiting certain types of marriages? Take a look at Amendment X, and tell me where it says that the [i]States[/i] cannot prohibit certain types of marriage?

That's like saying, "According to the Old Testament, could women be stoned for adultery?" If 20 people responded "no" because of visceral emotional reactions, they don't like the idea of people ever being stoned to death, it would not change the fact that, yes, actually, women could be stoned for adultery, [i]according to the Old Testament, despite your emotional or rational distaste for the practice.[/i] I am one of the people that voted that "Yes, constitutionally speaking, gay and interracial marriage can be banned by the small States (though not the Federal State.) Do I believe that [i]any[/i] State [i]should [/i]ban gay "marriage" or interracial marriage? Work within the framework of the question, and you will probably see all those "horrible, horrible" people on this site disappear.

[Edit: Ah, looks like Mith Luin summed it up already.]
~Sternhauser

Edited September 19, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='desertwoman' timestamp='1284904354' post='2174527']
I always thought that marriage in antiquity was seen as a business and legacy deal (dowrys and making sure this family lineage is going on strong).[/quote]

You are right about that for many cases. Even then it still considered property rights (e.g., the offspring of this marriage will legally inherit x, y, z)

The historian Henry Kamen (ethnically Jewish - swarthy so I figure an Arab Jew) claims in his book [i]How Spain Became an Empire[/i], that Spain was the first empire in history not to be formed as such through war, but it did so through a series of strategic marriages. The Conquests came later I guess. That's of course presuming Kamen is correct in his assessment. (Spain did not exist as a nation-state with clearly defined boarders then, it was a regional concept inclusive of a bunch of kingdoms, in away, most of the Conquistadors might be more accurately called Castillians rather than Spaniards, although that label is fine too)

[quote]
I have a question. Do you think marriage went awry when more people wanted to marry for love and not a business or legacy venture?
[/quote]

I dunno. I can't pretend to be an amateur scholar on the subject of marriage and its history. I'll make a personal opinion, for what its worth, and that is I think marriage for emphasizing love was a very positive evolution.

I used to frequent an Asian board. Middle Eastern people would post on there but mainly Eastern and Southeastern Asians. Some East Indians too. At any rate, from some of the people on that board I gained a new perspective on "arranged marriages." Some of the people forcefully pointed out that proper arranged marriages are not forced marriages. I suppose in the most ideal situation, arranged marriages allow for even those that would otherwise be lonely or rejected to be married and develop intimate companionship.

In certain rural regions of Latin America the family legacy is still a very strong thing. In say... urban Rio de Janeiro that is probably not of much importance. Possibly. But in Northeastern Brazil, among those related to the "Colonels," the impression I get from what I have read, is that it's [i]very [/i]important. Imagine, in the 21st century you have men in Brazil, the so-called Colonels, that own plantations literally the size of some countries in Europe. They own their own militias, and if you are a young man and marry a Colonels daughter... you will not divorce her. Otherwise you might end up dead. I guess that's the Catholic version of "honor killings."

[un.privileged]

What is "marriage"? When I am married without a sacrament, would God acknowledge that I am "married"?

[dauntingknight]

Since when was it clearly decided that the Supreme court can interprate the US Constintiution.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dauntingknight' timestamp='1286075357' post='2177590']
Since when was it clearly decided that the Supreme court can interprate the US Constintiution.
[/quote]
Marbury vs. Madison 1803

[OraProMe]

[quote name='dauntingknight' timestamp='1286075357' post='2177590']
Since when was it clearly decided that the Supreme court can interprate the US Constintiution.
[/quote]

The entire point of a High Court is to limit the power of Government and over turn any unconstitutional legislation. That's why they're created.

N.B I'm saying this as someone studying the Australian political system, it might be different in America but I don't think so.

[yoda]

God has created us each individually. Although I dont "enjoy" seeing two members of the same sex kissing or along those lines I still believe some people were born that way. Some feel as if they cant escape it, so why should they be alone all their life if they long for someone? It is unfair to cast them out as 'sinful', they could be leading a normal catholic life better then you are. We shouldnt make them feel like any less of a person, im sure some are already battling with that feeling. We are taught to accept and treat others as we wish for them to do to us. If they are not affecting you in any way why should gay marraiges be banned?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='yoda' timestamp='1286511748' post='2178480']
God has created us each individually. Although I dont "enjoy" seeing two members of the same sex kissing or along those lines I still believe some people were born that way. Some feel as if they cant escape it, so why should they be alone all their life if they long for someone? It is unfair to cast them out as 'sinful', they could be leading a normal catholic life better then you are. We shouldnt make them feel like any less of a person, im sure some are already battling with that feeling. We are taught to accept and treat others as we wish for them to do to us. If they are not affecting you in any way why should gay marraiges be banned?
[/quote]
The Church doesn't cast out sinners, otherwise, I'd never be allowed in the door. We can love a sinner without loving their sinful life. We certainly shouldn't give material aid to them in continuing in their sinful life. It's a half-life. If we love them, we should want them to have a full life, a whole life, and a healthy, authentic life.

[yoda]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1286512177' post='2178481']
The Church doesn't cast out sinners, otherwise, I'd never be allowed in the door. We can love a sinner without loving their sinful life. We certainly shouldn't give material aid to them in continuing in their sinful life. It's a half-life. If we love them, we should want them to have a full life, a whole life, and a healthy, authentic life.
[/quote]

I didnt mean it in that sense that they just shun them, Im aware that we all make mistakes. I dont think you are able to judge that its only a "half-life", if it was stated that having a cat is a sin because it is not a dog and youve grown with it would you really get rid of it? or hope that people are accepting enough to understand you love something with all your heart because thats just the way things work. Gay marriages arent aiding to leading someone to a "sinful life", its simply giving them the freedom and chance of being happy and attempting to live a normal life as best they can with the circumstances theyve been given. BUT if someone is parading around trying to turn everyone gay and acts obnoxiously about it then yes, that is something that would make it a problem. As for interracial marriages I hope no one is ignorant enough to say that is a sin...

[yoda]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1286512177' post='2178481']
The Church doesn't cast out sinners, otherwise, I'd never be allowed in the door. We can love a sinner without loving their sinful life. We certainly shouldn't give material aid to them in continuing in their sinful life. It's a half-life. If we love them, we should want them to have a full life, a whole life, and a healthy, authentic life.
[/quote]

I didnt mean it in that sense that they just shun them, Im aware that we all make mistakes. I dont think you are able to judge that its only a "half-life", if it was stated that having a cat is a sin because it is not a dog and youve grown with it would you really get rid of it? or hope that people are accepting enough to understand you love something with all your heart because thats just the way things work. Gay marriages arent aiding to leading someone to a "sinful life", its simply giving them the freedom and chance of being happy and attempting to live a normal life as best they can with the circumstances theyve been given. BUT if someone is parading around trying to turn everyone gay and acts obnoxiously about it then yes, that is something that would make it a problem. As for interracial marriages I hope no one is ignorant enough to say that is a sin...