Ron Paul Supporters. Please Wake Up.

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332558305' post='2406869']
Fair enough. He does think that the states have the right to do so, but he doesn't want the government involved period.
[/quote]

why is that a bad thing? That would stop the state from sanctioning gay marriages. Why do you want the state to use its power to force your beliefs on others?

[qfnol31]

I edited my post above (sorry!):

I'm not sure how to respond to your question succinctly, but this isn't just a matter of me having my beliefs enforced on other people any more than telling people they can't murder or they have to take responsibility when they father a child is enforcing my beliefs on other people.

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332558633' post='2406875']
I edited my post above (sorry!):

I'm not sure how to respond to your question succinctly, but this isn't just a matter of me having my beliefs enforced on other people any more than telling people they can't murder or they have to take responsibility when they father a child is enforcing my beliefs on other people.
[/quote]

Those are both instances on them infringing on the rights of others. How are two gay men marrying each other in some non-state ceremony infringing on your rights?

[qfnol31]

They're infringing on the rights of a child to a father and a mother.

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332558833' post='2406878']
They're infringing on the rights of a child to a father and a mother.
[/quote]

That assumes that they want to raise children. But assuming that they did. We don't live in a nation of positive liberties. No child has a right to a mother and a father. By your logic all single mothers all single fathers must have their children seized by the state. This would also make our orphanan population problematic since we would be depriving this children of a right. Which is why we don't grant positive rights.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Hasan

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332558833' post='2406878']
They're infringing on the rights of a child to a father and a mother.
[/quote]

now that just doesnt make any sense.
1) two gays getting married doesnt mean there will be any less children in the world, unless you honestly think they will go "oh wait, i cant get married? well, time to start being attracted to women and raising a family!"
2)or do you mean the slippery slope sorta thing with adoption? the way adoption/foster care works, and always has worked, gay people could probably adopt hundreds or thousands of children every year and not mean that a single less child goes to hetero parents.
At least they would have some caretakers who actually want them. better than no parents at all, same as a single parent, and way better than going through childhood and teen years bouncing from one horrible orphanage to foster home.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[4588686]

If you look at the constitution you will notice that everything applies to the government. 'Congress shall make no law..." This is a negative right. This is the sort of rights that our constitution gives us. You don't have a right to a house. You just have a right to the government not prohibiting you unjustly from obtaining a house.

[qfnol31]

You need to remind the government of this lack of a right:

http://www.fatherhood.gov/home
http://veryhilarious.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/take-time-to-be-a-dad-today-lion-king.jpg

I pass a sign like that last one every day.

Also, see laws that respect the rights of parents to keep their children or to ask for them back. Implicit in these laws is that the parents are naturally the best choice for the children as well.

Now for single parents: not all rights are directly enforceable. Some are and some aren't. The right not to have two fathers is enforceable. The right not to have two mothers, etc.


Finally, we aren't actually taking away a right. All men have a right to marry any woman of a certain age, under certain circumstances. All women have the same right. We haven't taken away the right to marry. And furthermore, no one has a right to marry whomsoever they want.

We don't allow a person to get married to another person while they are still married. Why can't a man have multiple wives? We don't say that 12-year-olds have a right to marry period, but you don't think that that's a bad thing, do you? They aren't really hurting anyone. Ought we throw that out too? By your logic, they're not hurting anyone so we've deprived them of a right.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1332559306' post='2406883']
now that just doesnt make any sense.
1) two gays getting married doesnt mean there will be any less children in the world, unless you honestly think they will go "oh wait, i cant get married? well, time to start being attracted to women and raising a family!"[/quote]That's not really an argument. Some countries don't allow single parents to adopt (China for instance) because it isn't in the best interest of the child much of the time. Sure it will work out sometimes, but it is not what it best for those children. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Adoption does not always work simply because a couple (or a single person, etc.) has removed a child from a foster home or orphanage and placed them into a loving home. I would know, my parents have adopted 10 times already. It is a non argument to say that these children are better off simply because they were adopted.

[quote]2)or do you mean the slippery slope sorta thing with adoption? the way adoption/foster care works, and always has worked, gay people could probably adopt hundreds or thousands of children every year and not mean that a single less child goes to hetero parents.[/quote]It's not a matter of numbers.
[quote]At least they would have some caretakers who actually want them. better than no parents at all, same as a single parent, and way better than going through childhood and teen years bouncing from one horrible orphanage to foster home.
[/quote]Again, this is a non argument that most people outside the scope of actual experience with adoptions do not see. Most people think that children are better off simply because they were adopted.

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332559590' post='2406885']
You need to remind the government of this lack of a right:

[url="http://www.fatherhood.gov/home"]http://www.fatherhood.gov/home[/url]
[url="http://veryhilarious.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/take-time-to-be-a-dad-today-lion-king.jpg"]http://veryhilarious...y-lion-king.jpg[/url]

I pass a sign like that last one every day.[/QUOTE]


?

You're an educated man. I think you know why this doesn't work. Of course, the state has an interest in promoting stable enviorments for children. That does not mean that any child has a right to a father. You don't. If you can find some Case where the USSC has announced that a child has a right to have a father I would be interested to see it.

[QUOTE] Also, see laws that respect the rights of parents to keep their children or to ask for them back. Implicit in these laws is that the parents are naturally the best choice for the children as well. [/QUOTE]

They usually are. Not always. This is why some children are removed from their biological parents. You're just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

[QUOTE]Now for single parents: not all rights are directly enforceable. Some are and some aren't. The right not to have two fathers is enforceable. The right not to have two mothers, etc. [/QUOTE]

There is no such right. At least not in this country. Which is a secular republic, rather than a Catholic theocracy.


[QUOTE] Finally, we aren't actually taking away a right. All men have a right to marry any woman of a certain age, under certain circumstances. All women have the same right. We haven't taken away the right to marry. And furthermore, no one has a right to marry whomsoever they want.[/QUOTE]

By this logic the state can outlaw interracial marriage. By this logic all Saudi citizens have equal religious rights too. Everybody has a right to be a Muslim. The court has long rejected this line of thought.

[QUOTE] We don't allow a person to get married to another person while they are still married. Why can't a man have multiple wives? We don't say that 12-year-olds have a right to marry period, but you don't think that that's a bad thing, do you? They aren't really hurting anyone. Ought we throw that out too? By your logic, they're not hurting anyone so we've deprived them of a right.
[/quote]

They're hurting the 12 year old. I don't have a problem with polygamous marriage so long as domestic violence is not present.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332560145' post='2406894']
?

You're an educated man. I think you know why this doesn't work. Of course, the state has an interest in promoting stable enviorments for children. That does not mean that any child has a right to a father. You don't. If you can find some Case where the USSC has announced that a child has a right to have a father I would be interested to see it.[/quote]There are some basic rights about which the Courts have not yet determined. A person has a right not to be enslaved, but it took SCOTUS almost 100 years to accept that, and then it was only by Constitutional Amendment that their opinion was changed.

I can talk about rights, but you cannot limit me to only what SCOTUS or our Constitution has determined. Certain human rights are inalienable and may be illuminated by my Catholicism, but I don't make these arguments simply on a Catholic basis.

[quote]They usually are. Not always. This is why some children are removed from their biological parents. You're just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.[/quote]Here I can pull out a SCOTUS ruling that child's rights are first. There is a hierarchy of rights as well, first being the right to life (not always accepted in our country, particularly before birth). Next is a child's right to safety. Then we can speak about stability, etc.

[quote]There is no such right. At least not in this country. Which is a secular republic, rather than a Catholic theocracy.

By this logic the state can outlaw interracial marriage. By this logic all Saudi citizens have equal religious rights too. Everybody has a right to be a Muslim. The court has long rejected this line of thought.[/quote]But now you have shown your slavery to the courts and our government. Rather than being free to determine rights, you are held back by court decisions.

Secondly, there is a difference to interracial marriage and heterosexual marriage that doesn't allow for your analogy. You would have to use interspecies marriage to come up with a more appropriate analogy, but then that would prove my point. The sexual distinction between men and women transcends even species differences. We recognize female and male dogs, dolphins, etc. In almost all animals this distinction is necessary and the union between male and female is something unique.

This is demonstrated by simple science: the union between a male and a female IN GENERAL (forget accidental differences; we're looking at the ideal and the general understanding here) offers the chance for life. This in itself is unique because no other natural union can compare. Therefore, as much as we can talk about the other reasons for marrying, the union between a male and a female will always have something no other relationship can. If you go into how two women can become pregnant, it's not the same action and therefore it's not on the same level. This last example would be analogous to saying that a person in a wheelchair is moving in the same manner a runner moves.

On top of this, I see sexual differences as extending further than the ability to procreate. Each sex brings something unique to a relationship. Unfortunately I cannot really make this argument because our society is bent on making sure that they don't bring something different, but in every marriage I have ever known between a man and a woman, each person had something different to offer simply because of their sex. Unfortunately, good empirical datum of this sort is unacceptable to most modern discussions.

[quote]They're hurting the 12 year old. I don't have a problem with polygamous marriage so long as domestic violence is not present.
[/quote]I won't really make this argument, but I would suggest that the gay couple and the polygamous couple are hurting themselves.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332558771' post='2406877']
Those are both instances on them infringing on the rights of others. How are two gay men marrying each other in some non-state ceremony infringing on your rights?
[/quote]

Agreed. Although two gay men marrying each other might be mortally sinful, damaging to the Church and society, and and all around bad idea, it doesn't infringe on any of my rights for them to do such a thing.

Really i want the government out of the marriage business in general. It isn't the place of the government.

[qfnol31]

The Church as a whole and the USCCB have said that the government does have a place in marriage theologically. In this matter, when it comes to the theology of law, many people on this site are have clearly disregarded what the Church has taught.

While politically there may be some merit to the claim that government should have no say, the Church wholly disagrees.

Edited March 24, 2012 by qfnol31

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332565148' post='2406935']
The Church as a whole and the USCCB have said that the government does have a place in marriage theologically. In this matter, when it comes to the theology of law, many people on this site are have clearly disregarded what the Church has taught.

While politically there may be some merit to the claim that government should have no say, the Church wholly disagrees.
[/quote]

That's fine. But the Church is not above the state. At least not legally. If you want to believe that it is then that's fine. But that is meaningless when you are speaking to somebody who does not recognize your Church as the Vicar of Christ.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332565746' post='2406938']
That's fine. But the Church is not above the state. At least not legally. If you want to believe that it is then that's fine. But that is meaningless when you are speaking to somebody who does not recognize your Church as the Vicar of Christ.
[/quote]Yep, I recognize this and will definitely try not to use the argument against your arguments. I see a potential religious problem here insofar as some Catholics use religion to justify their political position (for which I would probably be justly criticized if I tried to do so), a practice that is especially problematic in this particular instance since the Church in this case does not in fact support the position of many here theologically.

In some ways you and I are making a similar argument about the use of religion.

Edited March 24, 2012 by qfnol31