More Rants

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643108' post='2433383']
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]
This nonsense all started with you lambasting my blog, accusing me of promoting a drastic expansion of government power over marriage, or some such garbage (which has nothing to do with what I actually said).

My stated position on "gay marriage" can be summarized thus:

1) Federal courts should not impose a legal redefinition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples (or any other such redefinitions) on the respective states.

2) Catholics are morally obligated not to support same-sex "marriage" or "civil unions" equivalent to marriage in any way. For instance, when the issue comes up for vote on a state ballot, Catholics should vote against "gay marriage."

Do you disagree with either of those points?

If not, then you either seriously misunderstand me, or you're attacking straw-men and stirring up conflict for its own sake where none need exist.

[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.them.[/quote]
Agreeing with the CDF Prefect and Church tradition on this issue rather than with yourself certainly does not make me a heretic, nor does it make me a raving statist lunatic seeking to expand government power. Cardinal Ratzinger was not arguing for an expansion of state power over marriage any more than I was, but was trying to protect legal marriage against radical redefinition by the state.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337645233' post='2433412']
This homoerotic subtext is making me slightly uncomfortable.
[/quote]
Homoerotic? USAirways is a woman just like you (though not quite as young and pretty). Just look at her picture.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Socrates

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337644275' post='2433401']
But what irks me about that is that it's making it seem as though we need, for whatever reason, the government to give its stamp of approval on what we already know. Maybe it's just a reflection of my personality, but I really don't care what the government has to say about what kind of people are actually married and aren't, because although they have a monopoly on many things, religious definitions are not one of them.
[/quote]How would you feel about government defining life (in a good way) if such a definition is geared towards defending a particular good or a particular set of goods?

I'm not sure what your last statement means. You say that natural marriage is a given, obvious thing. And then you say that marriage is a religious definition. Natural marriage, by definition, isn't a religious definition. It's explained more fully and complemented by the religious definition, but it stands on its own, open for all to know and understand. I think you said it well above with the part about natural law: in the case of marriage, government is only affirming what we already know with reason (and something we can know without any reference to religion, if we choose). That's how all laws operate. When the government has a law that states that marriage is only between one man and one woman, it restates what natural law says. Again, that's exactly what human laws should do (either restate natural law or apply a general portion of natural law to a specific context).

The government, by reaffirming one aspect of natural marriage, is preserving a particular good in our society. I've argued elsewhere that this good is imperfectly defended by government, but that doesn't mean it isn't defended at all.

As far as I can tell, one of our biggest points of disagreement is that you see the definition of marriage as only religious, though I have pointed out that the definition of natural marriage can be separated from religion.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337644620' post='2433406']
Benedict is actually not a republican. And I'm pretty sure that you don't apply this standard of adherence regarding the plethora of issues that your Pope has spoken out on (things like climate change, income inequality, unfettered capitalism et cetera) that don't fit in your imitation-Hanity talking points.
[/quote]If it makes you feel better, I do. I just argue for a different source of defense than government, but it depends on the situation. I also argue for the redistribution of wealth - but based on the generosity of the wealthy (who publicly seem to give lots of arguments for why they should have their wealth redistributed, but don't do it themselves...interesting).

Okay, I'm done hijacking. I can't remember the last time the Holy Father said something about the government being the only or best actor in these situations, though the government can promote such things without being overly dictatorial.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337644275' post='2433401']
But what irks me about that is that it's making it seem as though we need, for whatever reason, the government to give its stamp of approval on what we already know. Maybe it's just a reflection of my personality, but I really don't care what the government has to say about what kind of people are actually married and aren't, because although they have a monopoly on many things, religious definitions are not one of them.
[/quote]
Relating the role of Government with Catholicism is pretty clear and fair. Even if one isn't Catholic, let's say a Humanist (yes, they have moral priniples, i.e. UN's Human Right Decree), Government is a tool of human society to bring order, protect freedoms, within the framework of a moral order. Theists don't have a monopoly on moral principles, nor are moral principles non-existent outside Theism.

Catechism
[b]1921 Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this it must employ morally acceptable means.
1922 The diversity of political regimes is legitimate, provided they contribute to the good of the community.
1923 Political authority must be exercised within the limits of the moral order and must guarantee the conditions for the exercise of freedom. [/b]

[b]Declaration on Human Rights[/b]

[b] [b]Article 28.[/b][/b]
[list]
[*][b]Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.[/b]
[/list]
[b][b] [b]Article 29.[/b][/b][/b][list]
[*][b][b](1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.[/b][/b]
[*][b][b](2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.[/b][/b]
[/list]

Edited May 22, 2012 by Anomaly

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643108' post='2433383']
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.[/quote]I find this problematic because while marriage is definitely religious, religion (faith, grace) isn't superimposed on nature. I think Karl Rahner takes the point of view that grace is superimposed on nature, but Henri de Lubac countered that grace works with nature. The latter is the better Thomist (on this point at least). What this means is that marriage is inherently a human good and corresponds with our nature. By nature marriage can be only between a man and a woman (as you and I both agree). All human goods that come from nature can be preserved by government. In fact, as Socrates is arguing, I think government oversteps its bounds to try to rid us of a particular good, in this case marriage. Government rid us of another good in permitting (unfettered) abortions - a right to life. In legalizing abortions, government overstepped its bounds.

[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]This gets to the heart of my whole issue here - while I agree that government ought not get into strictly religious matters, the implication in everyone's argument against state defense of marriage is twofold:
1) Either natural marriage is not real and/or not a good of society
2) Government does not need to defend natural goods so necessary for a healthy society as marriage is

I can guarantee you that both of these were defined by Pope John Paul II (and others, including Pius XII, Paul VI, Vatican II, etc.) as a necessary part of Catholic teaching. That is, as Catholics we are to believe that natural marriage is a real thing and a particular good of humanity, and that as a good it deserves the government's defense. If there is to be an argument against state intervention, we have to be careful not to reject the teachings present here, and all of these figures/councils teach that marriage is a particular good of society and must be upheld as such.

This last point is the basic role of government (that is, it must preserve society goods and justice), though perhaps the particulars are up for debate.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337650666' post='2433432']
Relating the role of Government with Catholicism is pretty clear and fair. Even if one isn't Catholic, let's say a Humanist (yes, they have moral priniples, i.e. UN's Human Right Decree)
[b]1921 Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this it must employ morally acceptable means.
1922 The diversity of political regimes is legitimate, provided they contribute to the good of the community.
1923 Political authority must be exercised within the limits of the moral order and must guarantee the conditions for the exercise of freedom. [/b]
[/quote]The common good of society is what I wanted here. Thanks!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337650841' post='2433434']
The common good of society is what I wanted here. Thanks!
[/quote]Exactly. Though you quoted me whilst I was still editing, my point is that moral principles can be agreed to and compatibility found despite relgious beliefs. Catholicism makes a lot of sense and explores and acknowledges principles with reason, and logic. Just because they (and other religions) add an element of 'divine sacredness', does not mean they can't engage disussing issues with shared values. It's counterproductive to throw your hands up and not discuss principles with other religions or philosophies because they don't share/agree on certain elements.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337651520' post='2433439']Though you quoted me whilst I was still editing, my point is that moral principles can be agreed to and compatibility found despite relgious beliefs.
[/quote]I'm a ninja and speedily quick when quoting. I agree with what you've said though.

[PhuturePriest]

Hey Socrates, this is a great picture I think you'll enjoy (Though it has no actual value to the thread):

[img]http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/431065_360759873955573_359553784076182_1101836_393137394_n.jpg[/img]

[Ice_nine]

kindness and humility: the forgotten virtues

but hey as long as you're [i]right[/i], you can be the biggest arse portal you want until everyone understands how [i]right[/i] you are!




The internet can be tiring sometimes yes?

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1337653110' post='2433456']
kindness and humility: the forgotten virtues

but hey as long as you're [i]right[/i], you can be the biggest arse portal you want until everyone understands how [i]right[/i] you are!




The internet can be tiring sometimes yes?
[/quote]

Is this directed to me, or...?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1337653110' post='2433456']
kindness and humility: the forgotten virtues

but hey as long as you're [i]right[/i], you can be the biggest arse portal you want until everyone understands how [i]right[/i] you are!




The internet can be tiring sometimes yes?
[/quote]

absolutly. humility is a virtue not used on the internet. although Jesus was all about humility.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337653265' post='2433460']
absolutly. humility is a virtue not used on the internet. although Jesus was all about humility.
[/quote]

Seeing as how I have been A bombed for being so absolute, I feel I have an actual opportunity to tell someone with prior experience that being absolute is wrong. I see many humble things on the internet frequently, particularly on Phatmass.

[havok579257]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337653395' post='2433461']
Seeing as how I have been A bombed for being so absolute, I feel I have an actual opportunity to tell someone with prior experience that being absolute is wrong. I see many humble things on the internet frequently, particularly on Phatmass.
[/quote]

seriously... i was speaking in generalities. i figured it was obvious since such an absolute statement iis false.