More Rants

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337632483' post='2433296']
I will gladly have a bromance with one of the few conservatives that has traditional conservative values here.[/quote]
Oh come off it. Do you realize what you're arguing for? You're arguing to give the government the power to decide who can and can't marry. If that isn't expanding government powers to an unbelievably personal level, then I wouldn't know what is. Expanding government powers is not a "conservative" thing to do.
Besides, that is one of the very few things that separates him (and you, I guess, if you're deciding to espouse his views) from most other Catholics here. Name a single Catholic on this forum who has voiced support for abortion or the HHS mandate. You can't, because Catholics who support that sort of thing generally don't last long around here, and if they do, they get a phishy tag good and quick.
Of course, if you're referring to "trivial" issues (like gun control), you'll find some variance of opinion, but even still, most true conservatives would still agree with you. But, by all means, if it does your heart good to believe that you are so much better than those of us who would like to prevent big brother from picking out our underwear, tell yourself what you need to to get to that point.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337632483' post='2433296']
I will gladly have a bromance with one of the few conservatives that has traditional conservative values here. Completely platonic, of course.
[/quote]
you sound so dreamy like sean hannity when you talk like that...

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337633053' post='2433303']
Oh come off it. Do you realize what you're arguing for? You're arguing to give the government the power to decide who can and can't marry. If that isn't expanding government powers to an unbelievably personal level, then I wouldn't know what is. Expanding government powers is not a "conservative" thing to do.
Besides, that is one of the very few things that separates him (and you, I guess, if you're deciding to espouse his views) from most other Catholics here. Name a single Catholic on this forum who has voiced support for abortion or the HHS mandate. You can't, because Catholics who support that sort of thing generally don't last long around here, and if they do, they get a phishy tag good and quick.
Of course, if you're referring to "trivial" issues (like gun control), you'll find some variance of opinion, but even still, most true conservatives would still agree with you. But, by all means, if it does your heart good to believe that you are so much better than those of us who would like to prevent big brother from picking out our underwear, tell yourself what you need to to get to that point.
[/quote]

I'm not going to argue anymore, but I will explain my position. I am not for the government deciding what we can and can't do, I believe the government cannot have a say in something that it never had a right to say in in the first place. It cannot decide what is or is not marriage. That is theology and according to the constitution the government cannot and has no right to lay a finger on it.

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1337633276' post='2433306']
you sound so dreamy like sean hannity when you talk like that...


[/quote]

Thank you. I listen to his radio show as often as I can, right after I am done listening to Rush Limbaugh.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337632417' post='2433295']

I'd be careful with that logic. Seems you could apply that to Roe v Wade pretty easily.
[/quote]Science has provided the means for us to demonstrate that unborn children are in fact alive. By my logic, the government has redefined what life is and has not defended what it ought.

I don't think government is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think Catholic principles work really well for defending things like marriage and life in the political sphere.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337633383' post='2433307']
I'm not going to argue anymore, but I will explain my position. I am not for the government deciding what we can and can't do, I believe the government cannot have a say in something that it never had a right to say in in the first place. It cannot decide what is or is not marriage. That is theology and according to the constitution the government cannot and has no right to lay a finger on it.
[/quote]
That's funny, because that is not what Socrates supports (per his blog).

[quote][color=#555555]This brings us to the central issue of why marriages are recognized by the state in the first place. While liberals and others will try to deny it, the fact is that marriage between man and woman has always been tied to the begetting and raising of children, and forms the best framework for such activity. It is the most basic and fundamental building block of human society. Homosexual buggery can never result in the procreation of children, and has no more intrinsic relation to the purpose of marriage than masturbating to porno videos. While it’s now fashionable for conservatives and libertarians (including many Catholics) to say that government should “get out of the marriage business” altogether, I’m not so sure that the state failing to give any legal recognition to marriage period is such a wonderful thing.[/color]
[/quote]
I don't want the government to have a say in marriage, either. Socrates clearly does. He seems to want to make the legal prerequisites for marriage identical to those the Church has. The funny thing is that I've never seem him griping about how divorced individuals are allowed to remarry, or that heterosexual unions that will bear no children should be outlawed.
Curiouser and Curiouser.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337633917' post='2433312']
I don't want the government to have a say in marriage, either. Socrates clearly does. He seems to want to make the legal prerequisites for marriage identical to those the Church has. The funny thing is that I've never seem him griping about how divorced individuals are allowed to remarry, or that heterosexual unions that will bear no children should be outlawed.
Curiouser and Curiouser.
[/quote]Are permitting divorce and homosexual unions the same sort of action? I don't mean, do they have the same outcome, but do are they in fact similar outcomes?

Arguments based on the ends alone misrepresent the other aspects of an action.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337633883' post='2433311']
Science has provided the means for us to demonstrate that unborn children are in fact alive. By my logic, the government has redefined what life is and has not defended what it ought.

I don't think government is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think Catholic principles work really well for defending things like marriage and life in the political sphere.
[/quote]
Whether the baby is alive or not is beside the point. Pro-abortion types don't seem to care about that.
You said:
[quote]I don't want the government to decide...I want it to confirm what has already been decided by a variety of factors, uphold that prior decision, and not try to change it.
[/quote]
To play madlibs with that:
I don't want the government to decide when and whether a woman can have an abortion...I want it to confirm what has already been decided by a number of factors, including court decisions and general societal and political approval, uphold those prior decisions, and try not to change it.

You can't have it both ways - either you want the government to be able to answer questions like "what is marriage" and "when is an individual alive" or not.
I choose not.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337634061' post='2433314']
Are permitting divorce and homosexual unions the same sort of action? I don't mean, do they have the same outcome, but do are they in fact similar outcomes?
[/quote]
The scenario was about permitting remarriage of divorced individuals, and do they not have similar outcomes? One being adultery, the other being homosexual relations? Both are pretty grave sins in Catholicism unless I am sorely mistaken.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337634257' post='2433316']
The scenario was about permitting remarriage of divorced individuals, and do they not have similar outcomes? One being adultery, the other being homosexual relations? Both are pretty grave sins in Catholicism unless I am sorely mistaken.
[/quote]What if a divorced couple gets an annulment? The divorce thereby becomes a recognition of what has taken place on the ecclesiastical level. While I know that doesn't normally happen, it could conceivably take place. Therefore, calling for an outright ban on divorce might indeed be a mistake. The Catechism gives reasons why a divorce might be permissible, and it also offers annulments. Therefore we can think of a situation in which divorce might be permissible. Can you think of a situation in which a homosexual union could be justified?

There are a few other reasons why Socrates or I might complain about one and not the other.
1) Homosexual unions are becoming more popular now and the legislation is present before us. Why take on a new fight immediately when another is raging. We often take on what is closer to us at the time.

2) To use the case of divorce would be to bring in more speculation that the Church is merely serving its own goals. We're not, we're trying to protect a fundamental good of society. (This is a bit weak, but it goes to show that prudence might be a factor).

3) Homosexual unions are a much graver offense against children than remarriage is. In fact, at this point the original divorce is a graver offense against the children of the relationship than remarriage. This adds in an extra element that makes it more expedient for us to fight against homosexual unions.

My point about the outcomes is that yes, these acts do indeed provide similar outcomes, but there are other aspects to the action as well that make them different sorts of acts. Remarriage after divorce is an act against marriage mostly, though perhaps less so against the children. Homosexual unions are a direct attack on a good of society. Furthermore, homosexual unions are detrimental to children who have a right to a mother and a father. (I realize that I am risking feedback from non-Catholics on this issue, but I make this argument in light of Catholic faith which has illumined the role between parents and children).

While I agree that both are grave matters, the type of action involved is very different. One of them (homosexual unions) is a more fundamental good to society and so it will receive more criticism from people like me or Socrates.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337634132' post='2433315']
Whether the baby is alive or not is beside the point. Pro-abortion types don't seem to care about that.
You said:

To play madlibs with that:
I don't want the government to decide when and whether a woman can have an abortion...I want it to confirm what has already been decided by a number of factors, including court decisions and general societal and political approval, uphold those prior decisions, and try not to change it.[/quote]If you read my original post I said that marriage has been determined by a number of factors and the government is in the process of redefining it against these. For example, societies have held marriage to be what it is for millennia.

I am not looking merely at government precedent, but in fact I am saying that government precedent that flaunts what should be obvious to rational people ought to be dispensed.

[quote]You can't have it both ways - either you want the government to be able to answer questions like "what is marriage" and "when is an individual alive" or not.
I choose not.
[/quote]I didn't say that at all. I want the government to defend what is obvious about marriage and what is obvious about life without offering a radically new definition.

These two types of prohibitions are radically different when we look at the acts themselves. However, when we only look at the end result and the implications about government that we derive from that end result alone, then we won't see the distinction between the acts and our religion looses all possibility of arguing for justice in society.

Essentially what has happened in Catholic circles is that marriage is no long a matter of justice. The Church teaches that matters of justice can be known by reason. This means that 1) the Church is wrong about marriage (inconceivable) or 2) marriage is in fact a matter of reason, not faith alone. If marriage is a matter of reason, then its basic principles can be known to all. Whether people want to recognize those principles is one thing, but the government has a duty to defend justice in any case. The fear that government can and is wrong does not mean that government doesn't have the right or responsibility to protect what is just in the first place.

[Vincent Vega]

Yes, I understand that there are times when the specifics of the situation would line up just right to make a remarriage okay. How often do you suppose this happens among the general population who get remarried?

Although the point about whether homosexual couples should adopt children is a separate issue in my mind, I'll speak to it anyway. As far children deserving a parent of both sexes, I see this as an exceptionally week point. What about children born out of wedlock? Children who have lost a parent (to illness, war, etc)? Children adopted by a single individual? A child raised by his three spinster aunts? What becomes of them? Ought they be taken away from those situations for failing to have a role model of both sexes?

[ThePenciledOne]

It's touching to see that Winnie is my successor to the pro-anarchism debate......even though I'm no longer an anarchist.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337635987' post='2433328']
Yes, I understand that there are times when the specifics of the situation would line up just right to make a remarriage okay. How often do you suppose this happens among the general population who get remarried?[/quote]Do you think that the death penalty should be eradicated entirely because there are only a few situations in which it might be valid and because another type of killing-abortion-is wrong, or do those minute instances call for more prudential laws on the subject? I know it's not the same topic, but I use this example as a way to illustrate my point. One is wrong in all instances and in a graver way (homosexual unions, like abortion) and the other is not always wrong and not as fundamentally wrong (remarriage after divorce, like the death penalty). Remarriage after divorce is also not as wrong because it is not the act of divorce itself. The two are different acts. Homosexual unions are a singular and more damaging act in themselves.

[quote]Although the point about whether homosexual couples should adopt children is a separate issue in my mind, I'll speak to it anyway. As far children deserving a parent of both sexes, I see this as an exceptionally week point. What about children born out of wedlock? Children who have lost a parent (to illness, war, etc)? Children adopted by a single individual? A child raised by his three spinster aunts? What becomes of them? Ought they be taken away from those situations for failing to have a role model of both sexes?
[/quote]It sounds like you want argue for the least common denominator. One thing is less than ideal so all such instances are also acceptable and none should be punished. Nevertheless, all of your examples are different sorts of actions and cannot be used to support homosexual marriages as a possible point.

Children out of wedlock are done a grave disservice, but children whose parents marry simply because of the children might also do their children a diservice. In this case one might be the lesser of two evils, making it the only permissible choice. Furthermore, while the parents have sinned against their children by denying them a stable family, they have not deprived the children of a father an a mother.

In the case of rape (my own added example), the sin against the child was performed by the rapist.

The case of the aunts might be a lesser of two evils situations.

Catholic organizations often don't allow single parents to adopt. Actually, some governments follow those rules for the same reason (my parents have adopted multiple times so I am quite aware of many national/international laws on adoption).

I could probably go on, but instead I'll post some links. My point is that even though some actions sin against kids, let's not add to the list of permissible options:
http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/children-video/ (It's not all video; the link also includes some text as well)
http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/children-faq/

[Vincent Vega]

You've missed my point. Instead of continuing further down tangential paths, I'll get to the root of things. The point was that Socrates (and you, I guess) want the (our) government to operate exactly as the Church does. It doesn't work like that, and it could never work like that. The Church is based upon being ruled by God, and our government, at its most fundamental state, is based upon being ruled by man. Some aspects of Catholic morality should be imposed, but because they are natural law (i.e., the prohibition of murder).
Those choices which have no deleterious effects on others (including who one chooses to share his health insurance with) ought to be left up to individuals. Whether or not those choices will lead to an individual's salvation is beside the point, because the government's job is not to get us to heaven. That is the Church's job.
Now, if one would like to reform this country such that it should become a Catholic state, following all of the teachings of the Church and enforcing her morality unilaterally, that's fine. That [i]doesn't[/i], however, jive very well with placing so much emphasis on the Constitution and its sanctity, as Socrates has done in his blog.

[Winchester]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1337636464' post='2433334']
It's touching to see that Winnie is my successor to the pro-anarchism debate......even though I'm no longer an anarchist.
[/quote]It's a normative position. How would you come to abandon it?