Gay Marriage, Permissible Catholic Views

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337141836' post='2431128']
Then riddle me this:

What's the point of having state-sponsored "marriage?"
[/quote]
Marriage is the most fundamental, primary, and necessary unit of human society, preceding the state itself. The Church teaches that the state has a duty to "promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good." How exactly this is done is a matter of prudence, but the state not giving any legal recognition to marriage whatsoever, and treating marriage as though it does not exist will certainly do nothing to promote and defend it.

If you want a thorough understanding of the Church's reasons for opposing state recognition of homosexual "marriage" or "civil unions," I'd strongly recommend reading the CDF document,[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"] CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url].

I strongly recommend reading the entire thing, but here's a relevant excerpt:


[quote]
From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337142185' post='2431130']
As usual you dodge the difficult issue. Was Virginia v. Love wrongly decided law?
[/quote]
I'd argue that legally it was an overstepping of constitutional boundaries, even though the decision in this case would be morally good. You could make a case from the fourteenth amendment, but that would be a bit of a stretch. Judicial activism doesn't necessarily have evil ends, but they can also be morally praiseworthy. The problem is not morality per se, but checks and balances on power. Courts can make morally heinous decisions (eg. Roe v. Wade) just as easy as it can make morally praiseworthy decisions. The job of the court should be to actually follow the letter of the law, not simply do whatever one regards as "the right thing" without regard to what the Constitution actually says. I think it would be better from a constitutional standpoint that this issue be decided by constitutional amendment.

However, I don't see Virginia v. Love as being completely analogous to a court decision to impose "gay marriage" on the states, as it did not constitute a redefinition of marriage in the same way. The fourteenth amendment doesn't demand that states recognize any possible grouping of "consenting adults" as a marriage that someone might want, as my prior example showed. It is not the place of the courts to redefine what marriage is.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337146783' post='2431145']
Uh huh.

And who is the decider of what societal "good" ought to be defended by the state? Because, last I checked, this was not a theocracy, where Biblical morality is sanctioned and enforced by the coercive nature of the state.
[/quote]

There is absolutely nothing which prohibits morality ("Biblical" or otherwise) from entering into legal decisions. I'd argue that if law has no basis in morality, then it is worthless. All legislation involves "morality" of some form (what is right and wrong, what one ought and ought not do), including the idea that states ought to recognize "gay marriage" against the will of the people.

The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill," and "Thou shalt not steal," yet no one suggests we get rid of laws against murder of theft because these things are morally prohibited in the Bible.

As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

George Washington proclaimed that "Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

The idea that all moral considerations must be excised from civil law is utter hogwash.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you could take it to the other extreme. should we basically enact laws that reflect every bit of our morality? i don't curse bc of morlaity... therefore you shou'dnt either, says the constitutional amendment? now cue pretty much legislating any vice or sin that one might see as a vice or sin. and then there's those people who don't see vices or sins in any traditional way.... why is it okay for us to enact our views, but not them? or if it is okay for them to, do we want them to? of course not. that means we shouldn't be doing it to others. what right does new york have to legislate what california does.... or vice versa? border lines are arbitrary to some extent, sure, but it's the point that matters... respecting autonomy. it's in fact, far far far more immoral to legislate what another state does, or another person, when it's not necesssary.
what's necessary? morality that has to do with laws that affect other people is one thing, like killing, morality that has to do with more fluff stuff as what you view as a personal morality is another. if we want to be respected we should respect others. and it shouldn't even be a third grader tit for tat kind of thing... we should respect others cause it's the right thing to do.
this is simple stuff. leave it to brain washed conservatives to muddy the water.
i suppose if you view gay marriage as a true threat to society or something, maybe that's something more substantial, at least more justified, from your view. at least it wouldn't be basically just enacting personal morals into laws that society has to abide by.

Edited May 18, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

there was a supreme court case where a rapist got off, cause the federal gov said rape is illegal, but back in the day the state did not, they were silent. the court said it was out ofthe fed's power to legislate that. i'm sure the brain washed conservative would say it's about states rights.
and it is yes. i suppose the rapist got off on a technicality.
but the conservative doesn't stop there. they also don't ban rape or murder or whatever, cause they say it's the states duty etc.
why are conservatives so up and arms about this gay marriage stuff but not other stuff? it can only boil down to a socially imbred response to the times, and brainwashed type stuff.

Edited May 18, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Vincent Vega]

Oh dairyperson, you've been missed.

[Anomaly]

Dairy, since humans aren't perfect, you can't disqualify best intents with extreme circumstances. Morals and values are the basis for all laws and social order. Majority tends to rule however, so ideas are debated in the public forum.

We have legal abortion because we couldn't agree on the best definition of a human life. We will get same sex marriage because we can't agree on the best definition for the optimal family unit. As usual, Catholic moral opinion will be meaningless because they won't agree on priorities. Death penalty or war will be more important than abortion or defending defenseless and innocent human life at conception. Tax exempt status, condom use, and health insurance will be more important than defending or defining a marriage as the creating a family unit that is intended to create and care for new lif instead of giving legal recognition to sexual gratification partners.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1337301920' post='2431989']
there was a supreme court case where a rapist got off, cause the federal gov said rape is illegal, but back in the day the state did not, they were silent. the court said it was out ofthe fed's power to legislate that. i'm sure the brain washed conservative would say it's about states rights.
and it is yes. i suppose the rapist got off on a technicality.
but the conservative doesn't stop there. they also don't ban rape or murder or whatever, cause they say it's the states duty etc.
why are conservatives so up and arms about this gay marriage stuff but not other stuff? it can only boil down to a socially imbred response to the times, and brainwashed type stuff.
[/quote]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1336965122' post='2430395']
As I am on my phone, I was going for brevity with my response. As such, I'd think it goes without saying that the amendment would prevent mothers and their offspring from getting hitched. Since, ya know, I think differing parties can all agree that 2 gay dudes wanting to commit to spending the rest of their lives together is NOT THE SAME thing as incest.
[/quote]

So one can only say something is wrong if there is mass support against it? I am quite sure 50 years ago there was such mass support against homosexual marriage. So was it wrong then and not today? Will incest be "right" some time in the future?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1336965122' post='2430395']
As I am on my phone, I was going for brevity with my response. As such, I'd think it goes without saying that the amendment would prevent mothers and their offspring from getting hitched. Since, ya know, I think differing parties can all agree that 2 gay dudes wanting to commit to spending the rest of their lives together is NOT THE SAME thing as incest.
[/quote]
Why? If the mother and the offspring are consenting adults, why should they not be able to become romantically involved and have that recognized by the state?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1337441220' post='2432631']

[/quote]
thanks for the engaging, informing, and constructive debate.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337438828' post='2432624']
Dairy, since humans aren't perfect, you can't disqualify best intents with extreme circumstances. Morals and values are the basis for all laws and social order. Majority tends to rule however, so ideas are debated in the public forum.

We have legal abortion because we couldn't agree on the best definition of a human life. We will get same sex marriage because we can't agree on the best definition for the optimal family unit. As usual, Catholic moral opinion will be meaningless because they won't agree on priorities. Death penalty or war will be more important than abortion or defending defenseless and innocent human life at conception. Tax exempt status, condom use, and health insurance will be more important than defending or defining a marriage as the creating a family unit that is intended to create and care for new lif instead of giving legal recognition to sexual gratification partners.
[/quote]

i don't know if or how i'm suppose to respond to this.
i don't see this response as countering the points i reaised.... maybe it's going off on a new direction with the intent to inform of something with no need to respond. if it is suppose to be countering my points, i don't understand how.

[Socrates]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1337442677' post='2432637']
So one can only say something is wrong if there is mass support against it? I am quite sure 50 years ago there was such mass support against homosexual marriage. So was it wrong then and not today? Will incest be "right" some time in the future?
[/quote]
The beauty of moral relativism.

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337453048' post='2432677']
Why? If the mother and the offspring are consenting adults, why should they not be able to become romantically involved and have that recognized by the state?
[/quote]
Exactly. Homosexual "marriage" may not be the same as incestuous marriage, but is objectively no less perverted. If "consenting adults" is the only criteria, and all moral considerations are to be thrown out the window, then any opposition must be nothing more than bigotry.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Socrates

[cmotherofpirl]

Consenting adults will be the only criteria, so the next battle will be to lower the age of consent. This is already evident in minors being allowed to have abortions secretly and without consent of their parents.

[havok579257]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1337481715' post='2432835']
Consenting adults will be the only criteria, so the next battle will be to lower the age of consent. This is already evident in minors being allowed to have abortions secretly and without consent of their parents.
[/quote]

lowering the age of consent will not happen since no one wants to get married right away. they want to sleep around and then marry. marrying you will not become the norm again.