More Rants

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337637860' post='2433346']
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.
[/quote]I did catch your point exactly. I was about to try something different myself, so let's take it this way.

You actually make a very good argument here why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. It harms people outside the union and society and ought to be opposed for that reason.

Furthermore, just because it's most clear according to faith doesn't mean that as a truth it's invisible to reason. That's how Protestantism approaches marriage.

Do you believe in natural marriage? If so, on what grounds?

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1337638057' post='2433347']
It's a normative position. How would you come to abandon it?
[/quote]

Well, it was a multiplicty of things and I wouldn't say that I 'abandoned' it, there is still an anarchistic quality to my thought. Anyways, I just realized that I couldn't simply compartmentalize how I viewed authority (man or Divine). That alongside the fact that being Catholic is entierly sufficent, without any other qualifer such as Conservative, Liberal etc does a certain injustice to calling oneself Catholic.

One of the works I read was by Hannah Aredent "The Promise of Politics" you might find it worth your while. I enjoyed it greatly and it showed me what politics are really for.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337638365' post='2433348']
You actually make a very good argument here why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. It harms people outside the union and society and ought to be opposed for that reason.[/quote]
Do explain how.
[quote]
Do you believe in natural marriage? If so, on what grounds?
[/quote]
Of course. And how do you mean, on what grounds? On the same grounds that I believe in Baptism or photosynthesis, I suppose. It just is.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337638693' post='2433350']
Do explain how.[/quote]I'm going to try to respond, but honestly I'm going to break a cardinal rule and respond with more questions...

When you said above that the argument about the rights of children is weak, is that because the other instances don't harm children (which seems different than your point of view) or because they also harm children like gay marriage (as your post seemed to imply).

If you want I can give societal examples of where we see this idea implicit. Part of the argument, though, is that there is a true difference between men and women and that each has something to offer their child. If each one has something to offer, then we can infer that a child by being born of a man and a woman has the right to the uniqueness that each gives. Again, I can go into more detail, but the harm to society is partly through the children.

Another harm to society comes from the lack of religious freedom that will flow from this ruling. If gay marriage is admitted into society, then we will lose our freedom to object piece by piece.

Lastly, and I think this will be the stronger argument for you, look at my point on justice below. You don't have to agree with all of these (or potentially any of these) to see gay marriage as detrimental to society. That means that the question focuses on natural law, which I'll address below.

[quote]Of course. And how do you mean, on what grounds? On the same grounds that I believe in Baptism or photosynthesis, I suppose. It just is.
[/quote]Natural marriage is based entirely in natural law, though it is supplemented and illuminated by faith. In these latter cases we also experience sacramental marriage.

What are the core points of natural marriage?
1) Permanency (you've alluded to this already)
2) Procreation (and education) - but openness to life, not necessarily in children
3) Monogamy
4) Heterosexual

The last one hinges on the second, but since all of these points fall under the concept of natural marriage, then they are all part of natural law. Natural law can be suppressed in our hearts, but that doesn't mean that any point of natural law can simply be thrown away.

Justice plays in because if any one of these is not present, then it is a grave offense against marriage. The thing is that only three of these can be determined absolutely before marriage. A woman who has an operation to make herself infertile will have a hard time ever entering into a true marriage.

In the case of monogamy and homosexuality, however, we can make a particular determination before the marriage. In both of these cases, a marriage is not equal to natural marriage (and not really a marriage).

So it's against natural law, but what does that have to do with justice? Well, both polygamy and gay marriage are in fact not marriage. Calling them "marriage" is an act of injustice, period. It's unjust because it's calling a union something it's not, which is false. It's also saying that one good is equal to a nongood, which is also false. It's fairly to argue that government should never support injustice, particularly of the sort as polygamy or homosexual unions because marriages are so pervasive in society and so the injustice done is great.

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337574184' post='2433184']
I'll just say (in no connection to the above post) that I find it very interesting that there are people who believe that the government is on the verge of throwing Catholics in jail, but at the same time, want the very same government to be able to decide who may and may not marry.
Curious.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what post you're writing in connection to (this looks like it belongs in the "gay marriage" thread), but opposing state recognition of homosexual "marriage" has nothing to do with giving the government new powers to decide who may and may not marry,[i][b] but is about preventing the federal government (via federal courts) from having the power to force the respective states to award legal recognition and benefits as "marriage" that have never before (prior to 2004 in Massachussetts) been recognized as such, over and against the will of the people of those states. It's about the federal government forcing the states to re-define "marriage" into something entirely different.[/b][/i]

Prior to 2004, [b]no[/b] states ever recognized same-sex relationships as "marriage" for well over two centuries of our nation's history, and somehow this has so far not led to government goons throwing Catholics in jail for getting married, or whatever slippery-slope totalitarian horrors we're supposed to fear if states do not award marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

And states not legally recognizing homosexual "marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with throwing anybody in jail. As I've pointed out before, in states that do not legally recognize gay marriage (still a majority of states in the USA), homosexual couples are perfectly free to live together, sodomize each other all they like, and even have "marriage" ceremonies complete with pretty dresses and the exchanging of vows and rings, without penalty. The state simply does not recognize such "unions" as "marriage."

What is really, truly curious is how some of the folks here who insist that no faithful Catholics must ever deviate from the current Holy Father's opinions regarding the application of the death penalty or certain wars at the same time completely and utterly disregard, or refuse to even acknowledge as a valid opinion, his clearly stated words regarding state recognition of marriage and homosexual unions.

Curious indeed.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Socrates

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337641501' post='2433365']
...
[/quote]
We must be arguing past each other because I didn't say anything about this. I'm not talking about gays getting children, by any means that they might do so. I'm just asking how two people of the same sex enjoying things like shared insurance and power of attorney is detrimental to society.
Also, please explain in detail how this will lead to a degradation of religious freedom?

It seems as though you're making me out to want to rewrite the definition of marriage. I do not. I want the opposite. I want the Catholic definition of marriage - the real definition, if you will - to become untouched by the government. I know the purposes of marriage, and am not arguing with them at all. I just don't understand why we need to the government to agree with those purposes and enforce them upon people.


I'm only going to respond to a bit of this one since it was rubbish, but:
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337641824' post='2433368']
What is really, truly curious is how some of the folks here who insist that no faithful Catholics must ever deviate from the current Holy Father's opinions regarding the application of the death penalty or certain wars at the same time completely and utterly disregard, or refuse to even acknowledge as a valid opinion, his clearly stated words regarding state recognition of marriage and homosexual unions.
[/quote]
The Holy Father did not say anything about state recognition of marriage. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, did, as head of the CDF, and certainly I don't need to explain to you how and why the opinion of the head of the CDF and the opinion of the Pontiff are different things.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337642406' post='2433373']
I'm only going to respond to a bit of this one since it was rubbish, but:

The Holy Father did not say anything about state recognition of marriage. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, did, as head of the CDF, and certainly I don't need to explain to you how and why the opinion of the head of the CDF and the opinion of the Pontiff are different things.
[/quote]

He still has those opinions, as is evident throughout his papacy. He has never stated it since then to my knowledge, but I doubt he put on his razzle dazzle hat and then thought "Wow, I've been totally wrong!"

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337633917' post='2433312']
That's funny, because that is not what Socrates supports (per his blog).


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]
You apparently only want government to have a say in marriage if it is by federal courts "legislating from the bench" to enforce legal "gay marriage" on the states.

And have you even read the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH's CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url], written by our current Holy Father as Prefect of the CDF?

He agrees with me that fully that the state has a [b]duty[/b] to [b]"promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good"[/b] and that[b] "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]

So do you "rep the Pope" regarding marriage, or is Benedict XVI merely another right-wing Republican wackjob, whose teachings on marriage and such can safely be tossed aside by faithful Catholics?

Curiouser and curiouser indeed.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337642406' post='2433373']
The Holy Father did not say anything about state recognition of marriage. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, did, as head of the CDF, and certainly I don't need to explain to you how and why the opinion of the head of the CDF and the opinion of the Pontiff are different things.
[/quote]I'm going to go backwards, but he did talk to the bishops recently about gay marriage:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/pope-benedict-immigration-reform_n_1526954.html

If you do a google search you might find all the texts. With US media, though, all I've been able to find is stuff on immigration...

[PhuturePriest]

*Sniffles* I'm sorry, I'm just so proud of myself. I'm in a debate with people that actually agree with me! I never thought I would see it...

Sorry, go ahead.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337642565' post='2433376']
You apparently only want government to have a say in marriage if it is by federal courts "legislating from the bench" to enforce legal "gay marriage" on the states.[/quote]
Yeah, because I said that, and because I'm the one arguing for an expansion of government power, right?
I'll say it again: I don't want the government to have any say in marriage. Straight, gay, Catholic, protestant, Jewish, vegan, or otherwise. Marriage - or unions, or commitment ceremonies, or whatever synonym you'd like to use for it - should be a religious thing. The state should be involved in how the two individuals' lives as minimally as possible for the operation of the state, e.g. for purposes of things like income tax (which, too, ought to be overhauled, but that's another argument entirely).

[quote]
And have you even read the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH's CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url], written by our current Holy Father as Prefect of the CDF?

He agrees with me that fully that the state has a [b]duty[/b] to [b]"promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good"[/b] and that[b] "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][/quote]

I have. I agree that we, as Catholics, should not approve of homosexual behavior. I disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion on the state's role, and unless I am very, very mistaken, the opinion of a prefect has never been binding on all Catholics.

[quote]
So do you "rep the Pope" regarding marriage, or is Benedict XVI merely another right-wing Republican wackjob, whose teachings on marriage and such can safely be tossed aside by faithful Catholics?
[/quote]
Do you know how stupid you sound when you say bratty little things like that? I'll presume not, because otherwise you wouldn't say them.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337642585' post='2433377']
I'm going to go backwards, but he did talk to the bishops recently about gay marriage:
[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/pope-benedict-immigration-reform_n_1526954.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_1526954.html[/url]
[/quote]
That's great. Again, I am not a proponent of gay "marriage". I have not argued for that once in this whole debate. Two homosexual individuals could not, of course, ever be married.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337642406' post='2433373']
We must be arguing past each other because I didn't say anything about this. I'm not talking about gays getting children, by any means that they might do so. I'm just asking how two people of the same sex enjoying things like shared insurance and power of attorney is detrimental to society.
Also, please explain in detail how this will lead to a degradation of religious freedom?[/quote]I made a comment above about how gay marriage is (among other things) a matter of childrens' rights. You said it's a rather weak argument and gave examples of children who live with their aunts, single mothers, etc. Gay couples who have a state-recognized marriage will have the opportunity to adopt, which is an argument against allowing the practice.

As for religious freedom, as gay marriage is permitted, the Church will lose both the ability to speak out against the practice (in word and deed-for instance in Maryland and DC Catholic Charities cannot provide adoptions since they refuse to provide them for gay couples) and the ability to refuse to perform gay marriages (though this is much further down the road. Again, these don't have to be convincing arguments. If gay marriage is proven to be wrong in any way by reason alone, then government in general has the right to prevent it from taking place based entirely on the principle of natural law. This is all to say that Socrates and I are very far from wanting a Catholic Church-state, though from a distance it might appear that way at first.

To say this point succinctly: our ideas of a good state correspond with our ideas of the Church state, but they can also be defended entirely from reason's point of view as well.

[quote]It seems as though you're making me out to want to rewrite the definition of marriage. I do not. I want the opposite. I want the Catholic definition of marriage - the real definition, if you will - to become untouched by the government. I know the purposes of marriage, and am not arguing with them at all. I just don't understand why we need to the government to agree with those purposes and enforce them upon people.[/quote]Well part of my point revolves around natural marriage. I don't think you're trying to redefine marriage, but essentially the state is taking upon itself the capacity of redefining marriage. As Socrates said above (though I'm saying something a little different), the state itself is in fact taking on a new role that it didn't have before and should never have: the ability to legislate what is manifestly wrong as determined by natural law.

I had to bring in the point of natural marriage and its elements because you said:
[quote]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.[/quote]

In fact, natural marriage is a part of natural law and so it has the right to be imposed based on your definition.

Also, I argue (and the Church does too) that gay marriage has a detrimental effect on society. These were the two conditions you posed for what laws can be legislated and why and I have done what I can to address how both of these are reasons to defend my position.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643271' post='2433384']
That's great. Again, I am not a proponent of gay "marriage". I have not argued for that once in this whole debate. Two homosexual individuals could not, of course, ever be married.
[/quote]I'll just add this in to make sure I'm clear. I don't think you're redefining marriage, but (to ask my question more clearly): what do you think gives the government such a right and why should the government not defend the traditional understanding of marriage?

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337642406' post='2433373']
I'm only going to respond to a bit of this one since it was rubbish, but:

The Holy Father did not say anything about state recognition of marriage. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, did, as head of the CDF, and certainly I don't need to explain to you how and why the opinion of the head of the CDF and the opinion of the Pontiff are different things.
[/quote]
If you won't respond to what I've written because you regard it as "rubbish," then I'm afraid your drivel must be likewise disregarded, as it is a steaming, filthy pile of raw sewage.

Regarding the office of the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is the highest office in the Church next to the Papacy itself regarding doctrinal matters, and this document was published under the full knowledge and approval of HIs Holiness John Paul II.

And there is certainly no evidence that Benedict XVI has switched his views on this matter since assuming the office of the Papacy, but in fact has continued to speak out firmly against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions."

The document clearly shows that Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking on behalf of the Church and Her teachings, rather than simply spouting his personal opinions on the matter. Also, how can the state "promote and defend marriage," if it does not even recognize marriage, or equates it with homosexual and other "unions" having nothing to do with marriage.

Certainly, the official writings of the Prefect of the CDF carry far more weight and authority than the opinions of the likes of "USAirwaysIHS" on an internet message board.

But, oh, well, in the "Newchurch" I suppose, official Church teaching from the Vatican doesn't account for much. "Primacy of Conscience" and all that jazz . . .