Apparent Disconnect In Debate On Role Of Government

[Winchester]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316545357' post='2307706']
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.
[/quote]
You're not dealing with people who regard themselves as superstitious and you've just responded to a minarchist/libertarian Catholic.

[Socrates]

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

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]
Don't get me wrong. Like you, I'd rather not have the federal government involved in marriage at all. (And I believe that constitutionally, it has no such power to do so.)

However, unfortunately, the way things are going, it will not likely stay that way. I think there is a very real danger that the Supreme Court, spurred by pressure from homosexual activists, could rule that the individual states give recognition and benefits to "gay marriage" - and therefore force homosexual "marriage" on the states against the will of the people much in the same way the SCOTUS forced legalized abortion on the states with Roe v. Wade.

I don't think this can lightly be dismissed as some far-out paranoid "what-if" scenario. A federal court has already ruled California's law barring recognition of homosexual "marriage" "unconstitutional." This sets a very dangerous precedent, and it is likely this matter will eventually be taken to the Supreme Court. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of "gay marriage" as a "constitutional right," the consequences for all the states can be serious.

I think a constitutional amendment along the lines of DOMA might be the only way to effectively fight this. Maybe it shouldn't "define" marriage per se, but at least legally limit state recognition of marriage to between one man and one woman.

You may not like that option, but I definitely think it preferable to "gay marriage" being forced on the states by fiat of federal court ruling. Like it or not, the fight has already started. The other side is certainly not relenting. If we don't fight back, we shouldn't complain that our country's going to hell.

[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.[/quote]
Historically, you did not have activists pressing for sodomitic couplings to be recognized by the states as "marriage," yet that is exactly what is happening right now, and you haven't really addressed what you think should be done regarding this.

The Church considers opposing legal recognition of homosexual "unions" or "marriage" as a grave obligation. From the document I linked to earlier:
[quote]1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.[b] Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/b][/quote]


[quote]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.[/quote]
I don't think civil law can adequately define marriage, but it can at least prevent things other than a union between a man and a woman from being recognized as "marriage."

And I'd have no problem in theory with the law only recognizing marriages witnessed by the Catholic Church, but in American society that's really not a feasible option.

I think it would definitely be far better and more in line with Catholic moral and social teaching to legally restrict recognition of marriage to between a man and a woman, than for the state to forcibly redefine "marriage" as including homosexual couples and other things that are not in any way real marriage. That would cede far more destructive power to the state, and is a real possibility if we don't start seriously fighting back.

[stevil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316554860' post='2307755']
You're not dealing with people who regard themselves as superstitious and you've just responded to a minarchist/libertarian Catholic.
[/quote]
Of course Wikipedia is not the definitive source of word definitions, but here is their definition of superstition none the less
[quote]
[b]Superstition[/b] is a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief"]belief[/url] in a non-physical (i.e. supernatural) [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality"]causality[/url]: that one event causes another without any physical process linking the two events
[/quote]
This required with regards to belief in a deity IMHO.

[KnightofChrist]

Here are better definitions of Superstition.

"[From [i]supersisto[/i], "to stand in terror of the deity" (Cicero, "De Nat. deorum", I, 42, 117); or from [i]superstes[/i], "surviving": "Qui totos dies precabantur et immolabant, ut sibi sui liberi superstites essent, superstitiosi sunt appellati", i.e. "Those who for whole days [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm"]prayed[/url] and offered sacrifice that their children might survive them, were called superstitious" (Cicero, ibid., II, 28, 72). Cicero also drew the distinction: "Superstitio est in qua timor inanis deorum, religio quæ deorum cultu pio continetur", i.e. "Superstition is the baseless fear of the gods, religion the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12748a.htm"]pious[/url] worship." According to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08186a.htm"]Isidore of Seville[/url] (Etymolog., l. 8, c. iii, sent.), the word comes from [i]superstatuo[/i] or [i]superinstituo[/i]: "Superstitio est superflua observantia in cultu super statuta seu instituta superiorum", i.e. "observances added on to prescribed or established worship"] is defined by [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm"]St. Thomas[/url] ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3092.htm#article1"]II-II:92:1[/url]) as "a vice opposed to religion by way of excess; not because in the worship of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm"]God[/url] it does more than [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm"]true[/url] religion, but because it offers Divine worship to beings other than [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm"]God[/url] or offers worship to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm"]God[/url] in an improper manner". Superstition [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url] by excess of religion, and this differs from the vice of irreligion, which [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sins[/url] by defect. The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm"]theological[/url] virtue of religion stands midway between the two. ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3092.htm#article1"]II-II:92:1[/url])"

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316545357' post='2307706']
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.
[/quote]
Oh, you mean like Joe Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and all those loving, ever-compassionate souls?

We all know atheism just turns everybody it touches into little saints.



. . . And speaking of saints, if you pick up and read a good Catholic book of saints' lives, you can find literally many hundreds of persons who practiced compassion and love for for their fellow man to a truly amazing and heroic measure, all out of their belief in and love for Christ.
If you want to look at those who truly lived their Faith and lived as the Church wishes us to live, that's where to look - along with the supreme example of the life of Christ Himself in the Gospels, of course.
(And yes, there have been plenty of bad and hypocritical Christians who do not practice the Faith they preach, but those are not the ones to look to for examples of true Christian religion in practice. Christ Himself said that not everyone who cries "Lord, Lord" will be saved.)

And if human beings are really nothing more than randomly evolved pieces of protoplasmic matter, then thought, reason, love, and compassion have no real meaning or intrinsic value, but properly only refer to biochemical reactions with no inherent value in themselves, nor is there any reason one should strive to practice such things if they're not so inclined. If being ruthless and brutal better suits one's personal goals and preferences, who's to say him nay?

Edited September 20, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

Disapproval or "judgment" of a form of behavior does not equal hate for persons.

You clearly disapprove of "superstition" and religious belief and tradition, and judge them wrong, yet that doesn't necessarily mean you hate all Catholics.

If you were truly non-judgmental, religious belief would not bother you, nor would you waste time railing against it.

[stevil]

I think people should legally be able to believe in what ever god or non god that they will into existence.
People should legally be able to choose to not eat pork or beef according to their religion if that is what they want to do.
People can give their money away to a begger on the street, to a relative, to a charity or to a church if that is what they choose to do.

But I disagree with people imposing restrictions on others when there is no victim, no harm to society, especially when the acts that are opposed is none of other people's business.

I am not against religion. But I am against any society or group or organisation that looks to put bigotry and oppression into law.
A group that is against gay marriage in my opinion is a group that is against love, and a group that is best to look at themselves and following a righteous life themselves rather than to worry and point at others into living a righteous lifestyle.

On the topic of health care and schooling I believe that governments ought to provide these for society. This isn't to say that private organisations aren't allowed to provide this service as well.
But of course a society needs to look after its sick. Schooling is a great equaliser between the wealthy and the poor. With an education a poor person can easily pull themselves out of poverty. In fairness a society needs to provide a decent level of schooling for free for all its members, this goes a long way towards equal opportunity.

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316556775' post='2307765']
And I'd have no problem in theory with the law only recognizing marriages witnessed by the Catholic Church, but in American society that's really not a feasible option.
[/quote]
This would in essence be swapping one governing body with another. So no different really, other than that one organisation is inclusive to all people in society and the other is exclusive to all but those of one particular brand of one particular religion.

in someways i am not opposed to having marrieage outside of the realm of government, but of course this means it will be completely unregulated, so anyone and every one could then get a type of marriage to whomever and what ever they like. Without government recognition it would be meaningless with regards to inheritance, family support, guardianship of minors, partner support, child support, authority to visit or make medical decisions for loved ones etc.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316545357' post='2307706']
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.
[/quote]
Yes ... that's why we have such a lovely safe society.. NOT. People murdering other people because they were asked to drive slowly, children having a 1 in 4 chance of sexual molestation or sexual behavior in our public schools, the elderly increasingly victims of home invasions and scams, the general lack of civility , decency and manners and the sanctioned murder of millions of babies. Really as a society we are doing so well....

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' timestamp='1316032720' post='2304704']
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]
Federal government has an interest in abortion because the federal government has a duty to protect innocent life. It did it during the Civil War, now it's the unborn's turn.

The composition of marriage is important to the federal government because marriage involves contracts crossing state lines (Marriage is a legal contract.) and because it relies on an understanding of what a family unit is for regulatory reasons, like processing taxes.

[stevil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1316630697' post='2308174']
Yes ... that's why we have such a lovely safe society.. NOT. People murdering other people because they were asked to drive slowly, children having a 1 in 4 chance of sexual molestation or sexual behavior in our public schools, the elderly increasingly victims of home invasions and scams, the general lack of civility , decency and manners and the sanctioned murder of millions of babies. Really as a society we are doing so well....
[/quote]
Are you saying that it is the atheists fault?

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316588117' post='2307963']
But I am against any society or group or organisation that looks to put bigotry and oppression into law.
A group that is against gay marriage in my opinion is a group that is against love, and a group that is best to look at themselves and following a righteous life themselves rather than to worry and point at others into living a righteous lifestyle.[/quote]
That's mighty judgmental of you.


Besides, if you were a philosophically consistent atheist, you'd understand that we are all nothing but purposeless pieces of biological matter. Your opinions, "love," "fairness," "bigotry" "oppression" and all such abstract ideas and concepts, including your atheism, are just illusions resulting from the electrical and chemical activity in your brain, which are purely physical motions which can have no more significance or claim on truth than a bowel movement. And since, as an atheist, you know that to be the case, you'd realize that there is no such thing as "ought" or "ought not." Since there is no reason to declare the pattern of the firing of synapses in your brain cells inherently any "better" or "worse" than my own, there is no point in trying to argue further.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316652336' post='2308351']
Are you saying that it is the atheists fault?
[/quote]
It sure as heck isn't the result of adherence to Christian principles.

[Mr.Cat]

[center][img]http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/religion/images/Philosophy-of-Atheism-02.jpg[/img][/center]

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316729279' post='2308666']
It sure as heck isn't the result of adherence to Christian principles.
[/quote]
Hmmm, so why are atheists under represented in prisons?