Apparent Disconnect In Debate On Role Of Government

[kenrockthefirst]

I've seen in argued here that government has overreached its role into areas of life that were heretofore handled by local communities, charity, etc. Welfare comes to mind. And, of course, more recently, the debate over healthcare, with Ron Paul arguing in a recent debate that healthcare for someone without insurance should be delivered by a local charity.

Fair enough. But why, then, do we want and expect government to get involved in other very personal areas of our lives, e.g. restricting aborting, disallowing same-sex marriage?

[Mr.Cat]

When you live in a Hooverville, community and charity is the only thing you have, thank you President Herbert Hoover.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' timestamp='1316032720' post='2304704']
I've seen in argued here that government has overreached its role into areas of life that were heretofore handled by local communities, charity, etc. Welfare comes to mind. And, of course, more recently, the debate over healthcare, with Ron Paul arguing in a recent debate that healthcare for someone without insurance should be delivered by a local charity.

Fair enough. But why, then, do we want and expect government to get involved in other very personal areas of our lives, e.g. restricting aborting, disallowing same-sex marriage?
[/quote]

Your two examples are not alike. I think it is a mistake to try to get the federal government to pass a law in defense of marriage. The federal government should not try to define marriage and if such a law is passed, even in defense of the traditional understanding of marriage, then we lose again because government has just absorbed within its power the ability to regulate marriage. Marriage is previous to and is the foundation for the state. Government can encourage it and the procreation of children, through tax breaks etc. since the government/state needs healthy marriages that produce children, but it should not regulate it since it is prior to and independent of the state. Restricting abortion, however, is a different matter. Yes it is personal, like marriage, and society has a vested interest in whether abortions occur or not, like marriage, but the government does in fact have the power to regulate hospitals and has the duty to punish ,prevent, defend its citizens from murder. As such, abortion does fall under something the government should make laws about.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' timestamp='1316032720' post='2304704']
I've seen in argued here that government has overreached its role into areas of life that were heretofore handled by local communities, charity, etc. Welfare comes to mind. And, of course, more recently, the debate over healthcare, with Ron Paul arguing in a recent debate that healthcare for someone without insurance should be delivered by a local charity.

Fair enough. But why, then, do we want and expect government to get involved in other very personal areas of our lives, e.g. restricting aborting, disallowing same-sex marriage?
[/quote]
The first examples involve the government forcibly taking taking and redistributing the money of us, while the second does not (unless you want to argue against having a justice system and law enforcement period, but most of the "liberals" in favor of welfare-state socialism are not anarchists.)

"I've seen in argued here that government has overreached its role into areas of life that were heretofore handled by local communities, charity, etc."
I've seen this argued by none other than Pope John Paul II in his encyclical [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html"][i]Centesimus Annus[/i][/url].[quote]
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State.[b] Here again [i]the principle of subsidiarity [/i]must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.[/b][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html#$2S"][sup]100[/sup][/url]

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.[/quote]

The principle of subsidiarity has always been central to Catholic social teaching. And the same Church has consistently strongly and unambiguously opposed all legal recognition of homosexual "unions" or "marriage," as well as the legalization of abortion - which is the deliberate killing of an innocent child.

(Please see the CDF document,[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"] "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons."[/url])

If you're going to identify your religion as "Catholic" on here, you would do well to pay attention to what the Church teaches on these topics.

Granting special legal benefits and recognition to sodomitic couplings as "marriage" would get the government involved in an area where it previously was not (such homosexual "unions" prior to the past decade were never recognized by the states - and the state was thus uninvolved).

And if you're going to argue for legalizing abortion (which is nothing less than the murder of an innocent unborn child), you may as well argue against all laws period. People commit murder, theft, rape, vandalism, and a variety of other crimes for "very personal" reasons, so by that logic, let's legalize all those things, and keep the government out of people's personal lives!

There is indeed a disconnect in liberal "thinking."

Edited September 17, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1316044417' post='2304779']

Your two examples are not alike. I think it is a mistake to try to get the federal government to pass a law in defense of marriage. The federal government should not try to define marriage and if such a law is passed, even in defense of the traditional understanding of marriage, then we lose again because government has just absorbed within its power the ability to regulate marriage. Marriage is previous to and is the foundation for the state. Government can encourage it and the procreation of children, through tax breaks etc. since the government/state needs healthy marriages that produce children, but it should not regulate it since it is prior to and independent of the state.
[/quote]
So are you arguing that the state must recognize homosexual couplings as "marriage" rather than "define" or "regulate" marriage?

Legal definition of marriage as between man and woman would merely codify what the the state has always implicitly recognized (prior to state laws passed in Massachusetts and other states, states did in fact exclude same-sex couples from legal recognition as "marriage"), and act as a legal bulwark against juridical attempts to enforce recognition of "gay marriage" on the states.

If legal marriage has no definition and can be granted to absolutely any couple (or other grouping of persons) that pays for a marriage license, it has absolutely no meaning or purpose, and the reasons you gave for the state recognizing and encouraging marriage become void.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316301068' post='2305984']
So are you arguing that the state must recognize homosexual couplings as "marriage" rather than "define" or "regulate" marriage?

Legal definition of marriage as between man and woman would merely codify what the the state has always implicitly recognized...and act as a legal bulwark against juridical attempts to enforce recognition of "gay marriage" on the states.
[/quote]

No, I do not think that the State must "must recognize homosexual couplings as 'marriage' rather than 'define' or 'regulate' marriage." I don't think anything I said above would suggest that. I do think that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not be involved in the marriage debate. To have them pass a law concerning marriage would be a pyrrhic victory. To suggest that the only two options here are"recognize homosexual marriage" or "define marriage" is a false dichotomy. The Federal Government need not do either since on the Federal Level, society seems to have functioned perfectly well for thousands of years without this explicit definition in Civil Law Codes. There seems to be no necessity in these things for the Federal Level in that the Federal State, though it must protect marriage if it wishes to survive, can in fact do so by allowing heterosexual couples to be married as has been the practice for some time and ignore the idea of polygamy and homosexual unions. There is no need to do either pass a law or allow gay unions really. If the Federal Government really wanted to favor one, they should offer tax breaks for those in certain relationships that they wished to foster. Also how would one "regulate" marriage? Do you think that the Federal State should be the one to regulate marriages? The State which comes after the institution of marriage? I am not ok with that. Are you? Legal marriage does not need to be explicitly characterized by the Federal State (though I think if it is done it should be done on a state level since they would be more able to "regulate marriage" as you call it). Would you want a National Committee for the Regulation of Marriage or someone in the Cabinet who oversaw marriage? It seems like the creation of bureaucracy for this purpose is laughable. The Federal Government seems to have been implicitly accepted the definition of marriage without explicit definition in the law for a long while. The distinction is ultimately whether the State DEFINES marriage or if the State ACCEPTS the definition of Marriage. These two things give a very different view of the role and power of government. Don't you think?

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316301068' post='2305984']

If legal marriage has no definition and can be granted to absolutely any couple (or other grouping of persons) that pays for a marriage license, it has absolutely no meaning or purpose, and the reasons you gave for the state recognizing and encouraging marriage become void.
[/quote]

Also there needs not be a necessary conjunction between "if legal marriage has no definition" and it "can be granted to absolutely anyone" since a brief review of history shows that there has been no explicit definition of legal marriage the way you wish there to be, though there has been an implicit one, but marriages historically have not be granted willy nilly to anyone that wants one and can pay for a license. Only since no fault divorce has that been become increasingly more common though still people take it someone what seriously. Also even if people did enter into marriage indiscriminately, you are wrong to say that the reasons I gave for the state recognizing and encouraging marriage become void. The State should always recognize (not define- this is the main distinction I wish to make) and encourage healthy marriages since healthy marriages that bring about children are what any state needs to survive. These reasons, which I just mentioned and mentioned before, exist independently of any definition or abuse of power by the government. They are objective facts about the family: that is it the first Church and the first Society. It is what makes all other types of society possible.

Marriage seems to me to be something you point at but not something that can be defined as such. Marriage as defined between a man and a woman is not a good definition. What is it that is between a man and a woman? Is it love. Not all love between the sexes should be marriage. Should we define love for marriage in law? Do you always love your spouse? I do not think so, I am sure there are times you want to strangle them but will what is good for them and will a marriage. Is it a contract? If so by what standards is it separate from other contracts? Also this seems a reductionist account of marriage. Is it something that one's sexuality is ordered towards? What of those who claim to be bi-sexual let alone gay? Is it against justice to allow a person to marry a person of each gender so as not to sacrifice what they feel ordered towards? For all these questions, the appropriate answer seems to be to point. To point out of the endless loop of questions and point at what is marriage. Marriage is something that the Church witnesses to and that the Baptized confer on one another. Marriages need not be defined since without the proper actions and people there is no such thing. Marriages either are or aren't. They do not exist by the permission of the State. Such a power of regulation is not a power even the Almighty Federal Government has. Marriages are [i]witnessed[/i] not regulated or defined. IN FACT, in [i]Arcanum Divinae [/i]Pope Leo XIII says that it is the right of the Church to witnesses and attest to Marriage and not the State's. The Church presents marriages for people to point to and for the State to accept. The State's role is not to define marriage and if we allow it to we have ceded more power to it than I think anyone would really be comfortable with: the power to bind and loose marriages.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1316415422' post='2306731']
I do think that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not be involved in the marriage debate. To have them pass a law concerning marriage would be a pyrrhic victory. To suggest that the only two options here are"recognize homosexual marriage" or "define marriage" is a false dichotomy.[/quote]
The federal government ought to stand up for the constitution upon which USA was built. To support people's rights and to allow people to live without persecution from bigotry of others or other people's religious beliefs imposing on people not belonging to those religions.

[dairygirl4u2c]

'with Ron Paul arguing in a recent debate that healthcare for someone without insurance should be delivered by a local charity'

one of the biggest jokes i've ever seen. sure some hospitals and opeople would give otu charity. but healthcare as delivered by the government now, even without a more expansive system... is so large and systematic for our poor, that charity would be no match for it. people get turned away from charity or can't find it, as it is now. imagine if we cut the small amount we have now.
plus it's not even charity's role, by and large, to take care of this. a person who is trying to get aheard, and isn't just down on their luck... should be able to meet a minimal threshhold, abilty to eat, find shelter, and tend to basic health care. this is a matter of 'right', it's nto something charity should be required to address. if this isn't working right, it's the government's role to fix it.
you better be sure... if the government ever cut all this stuff, and i was in good faith not able to tend to food or health care.. espeically for kids, the first people's houses and money i'm going to ransack, are those who tried denying all this stuff.
it'd be like a dude own all the earth but a patch, and claims it's all his cause legally the law of man says so. if we on that patch watned to branch off, and were dying because of it, you can be sure we'd go pick some apples from his land and plant some corn. stealing etc? call it what you will.. it's not wrong, it's not sinful, it's the law of God and man that that guy with his 'claims' is a [email="jack@zz"]jack@zz[/email] and you can be sure he's high on the list of who's going to get burnt.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316418586' post='2306747']
The federal government ought to stand aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr up for the constitution upon which USA be built. To support people's rights and aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr to allow people to live without persecution from bigotry of others or other people's religious beliefs imposin' on people not belongin' to those religions.
[/quote]

Now, you matey matey matey see, I be personally for such action of this kind by the government but I do not feel that I can impose on others me belief of how the government should act.

It is wrong to assume that people are against gay marriage simply for religious reasons. People are not so simple minded as to simply follow like drones the command aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrrs of religious leaders. thar are philosophic and aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr emotional reasons that are tied up in such understand aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrrin's of what marriage. It is too simplistic to assume that the reason people disagree with the idea that marriage is a social construction has nothin' to do with philosophy and aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr personal reasonin'. thar is more to the process than "religious bigotry" as you matey matey matey matey matey matey matey call it.

Though, it is obvious that you matey matey matey matey matey matey matey want the government to redefine marriage. How should they redefine it? If it is unjust to not allow someone to be married who feels sexual attraction another person of the same sex then is it also unjust to not allow someone who self-identifies as bisexual to be married to one of each? If marriage is only a social construction and aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr it is bigotry not to allow any two consentin' adults to be married then the government should allow bi-sexuals to have multiple spouses. If the government tries to redefine marriage, it will be rather funny to watch them struggle to define it "adequately," in a sad sort of way. Also, just as a personal understand aarrrin' aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrrin', I find the idea of sayin' somethin' is "only a social construction" to be terribly intellectually simplistic. thar is no such thin' as "just" a social construction. Societies always develop social constructions within cultures for a reason and aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr mainly as a support to the culture at large.


Edit* Apparently Dust made it talk like a pirate day.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1316415422' post='2306731']

No, I do not think that the State must "must recognize homosexual couplin's as 'marriage' rather than 'define' or 'regulate' marriage." I don't think anythin' I said above would suggest that. I do think that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not be involved in the marriage debate. To have them pass a law concernin' marriage would be a pyrrhic victory. To suggest that the only two options here are"recognize homosexual marriage" or "define marriage" is a false dichotomy. The Federal Government need not do either since on the Federal Level, society seems to have functioned perfectly well for thousand aarrrs of years without this explicit definition in Civil Law Codes. thar seems to be no necessity in these thin's for the Federal Level in that the Federal State, though it must protect marriage if it wishes to survive, can in fact do so by allowin' heterosexual couples to be married as has been the practice for some time and aarrr ignore the idea of polygamy and aarrr homosexual unions. thar is no need to do either pass a law or allow gay unions really. If the Federal Government really wanted to favor one, they should offer tax breaks for those in certain relationships that they wished to foster. Also how would one "regulate" marriage? Do you matey think that the Federal State should be the one to regulate marriages? The State which comes after the institution of marriage? I be not ok with that. Are you matey? Legal marriage does not need to be explicitly characterized by the Federal State (though I think if it is done it should be done on a state level since they would be more able to "regulate marriage" as you matey call it). Would you matey want a National Committee for the Regulation of Marriage or someone in the Cabinet who oversaw marriage? It seems like the creation of bureaucracy for this purpose is laughable. The Federal Government seems to have been implicitly accepted the definition of marriage without explicit definition in the law for a long while. The distinction is ultimately whether the State DEFINES marriage or if the State ACCEPTS the definition of Marriage. These two thin's give a very different view of the role and aarrr power of government. Don't you matey think?



Also thar needs not be a necessary conjunction between "if legal marriage has no definition" and aarrr it "can be granted to absolutely anyone" since a brief review of history shows that thar has been no explicit definition of legal marriage the way you matey wish thar to be, though thar has been an implicit one, but marriages historically have not be granted willy nilly to anyone that wants one and aarrr can pay for a license. Only since no fault divorce has that been become increasin'ly more common though still people take it someone what seriously. Also even if people did enter into marriage indiscriminately, you matey be wrong to say that the reasons I gave for the state recognizin' and aarrr encouragin' marriage become void. The State should always recognize (not define- this is the main distinction I wish to make) and aarrr encourage healthy marriages since healthy marriages that brin' about children are what any state needs to survive. These reasons, which I just mentioned and aarrr mentioned before, exist independently of any definition or abuse of power by the government. they be objective facts about the family: that be it the first Church and aarrr the first Society. It is what makes all other types of society possible.

Marriage seems to me to be somethin' you matey point at but not somethin' that can be defined as such. Marriage as defined between a man and aarrr a woman is not a good definition. What is it that be between a man and aarrr a woman? Is it love. Not all love between the sexes should be marriage. Should we define love for marriage in law? Do you matey always love your spouse? I do not think so, I be sure thar are times you matey want to strangle them but will what is good for them and aarrr will a marriage. Is it a contract? If so by what stand aarrrards is it separate from other contracts? Also this seems a reductionist account of marriage. Is it somethin' that one's sexuality is ordered towards? What of those who claim to be bi-sexual let alone gay? Is it against justice to allow a person to marry a person of each gender so as not to sacrifice what they feel ordered towards? For all these questions, the appropriate answer seems to be to point. To point out of the endless loop of questions and aarrr point at what is marriage. Marriage is somethin' that the Church witnesses to and aarrr that the Baptized confer on one another. Marriages need not be defined since without the proper actions and aarrr people thar is no such thin'. Marriages either are or aren't. They do not exist by the permission of the State. Such a power of regulation is not a power even the Almighty Federal Government has. Marriages are [i]witnessed[/i] not regulated or defined. IN FACT, in [i]Arcanum Divinae [/i]Pope Leo XIII says that it is the right of the Church to witnesses and aarrr attest to Marriage and aarrr not the State's. The Church presents marriages for people to point to and aarrr for the State to accept. The State's role is not to define marriage and aarrr if we allow it to we have ceded more power to it than I think anyone would really be comfortable with: the power to bind and aarrr loose marriages.
[/quote]
I'll respond after dUSt decides to get rid of the pirates.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1316450947' post='2307025']

It is too simplistic to assume that the reason people disagree with the idea that marriage is a social construction has nothin' to do with philosophy and aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr personal reasonin'. thar is more to the process than "religious bigotry" as you matey matey matey matey matey matey matey matey matey call it.

How should they redefine it? If it is unjust to not allow someone to be married who feels sexual attraction another person of the same sex then is it also unjust to not allow someone who self-identifies as bisexual to be married to one of each?
[/quote]
I'm not opposed to polygomy. It is not me cup of tea, but I don't feel everyone ought to drink from me cup.
Secular marriage ought to be recognised as a commitment of love and aarrr aarrr a bindin' of choosen family. Religions can define it however they like and aarrr aarrr celebrate it in their own churches or customs however they like, but secular marriage is somethin' different.

Edited September 19, 2011 by stevil

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316458645' post='2307108']
I'm not opposed to polygomy. It is not me cup of tea, but I don't feel everyone ought to drink from me cup.
Secular marriage ought to be recognised as a commitment of love and aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr a bindin' of choosen family. Religions can define it however they like and aarrr aarrr aarrr aarrr celebrate it in their own churches or customs however they like, but secular marriage is somethin' different.
[/quote]

you matey matey seem to divide the world into the religious and aarrr aarrr secular and aarrr aarrr believe that anyone who disagrees with changin' what has historically constituted as marriage is doin' so only on religious reasons. This is in fact false and aarrr aarrr thar are plenty of philosophic reasons why homosexual "unions" are not healthy for a society. In fact, even Plato thought this insofar as he expressed his position that homosexual acts were not beneficial to society. Would you matey matey say that Plato be simply a religious bigot tryin' to impose his will on the populace?

Edited September 19, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[stevil]

I haven't done extensive research with regards to this. I do have a perception that homophobia comes from religion though. Whether this be right or wrong, I don't know.
On the atheist forum I frequent it seems that all the atheists are OK with homosexuality. Actually I haven't read a post by any one of them opposing it. But on a couple of religous forums there have been many people opposing it. On one forum they even forbade threads on homosexuality.
So my perception is based on these experiences, but not extensive research.

[Winchester]

You're an atheist, so religion must come from man. Where's that put the ultimate origin of homophobia?

[stevil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316528754' post='2307585']
You're an atheist, so religion must come from man. Where's that put the ultimate origin of homophobia?
[/quote]
Oh, most definately.

But most people these days that have cast aside the superstitions and traditions of religion and whom have replaced this with thought and reasoning and compassion and love, these people seem to me to be less likely to judge others, especially on things where there is no percieved victims.