Fantastic Article Opposing Same Sex "marriage'

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343945225' post='2461715']
Oh please. The whole "I'm so shocked I agree with Socrates on something!" line is getting so old on here, especially when it's from people I generally agree with.

[/quote]

I don't think it's a line so much as people generally don't like to agree with your posts because you come off like a huge d...Hey! Look at that cat! razzle dazzle! Anyway, what was I saying? I think it was something about how maybe to unravel this mystery you should go back to MarieTheresa's enlightening (and comprehensive) post on this vary subject.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343945225' post='2461715']
Oh please. The whole "I'm so shocked I agree with Socrates on something!" line is getting so old on here, especially when it's from people I generally agree with.
[/quote]

Sorry. I didn't mean anything by it. It's not even that I disagree a lot of the times with what you say, but [i]how[/i] you say it. It's sometimes the spirit behind what you say appears to be . . . less than pleasant


[quote]

The government isn't the ultimate arbitrator of what is right and wrong, but according to Catholic social teaching, the law should reflect and be in accord with natural law morality, rather than be contrary to it.[/quote]

So do you think that a reasonable compromise would be for "the state to get outta the marriage business"? Or are you more in line with KoC that the state should promote the "traditional definition of marriage"

I tend to think this entanglement of the state and morality is part of the reason for the mess we are in now. You wouldn't have people crying for the state to approve gay marriages if they didn't think it [i]meant[/i] something, or had some moral value.

If the state stopped granting any recognition for marriage period (but recognized contracts made between any number of people) it may not be exactly encouraging "legit" marriages, but at least it wouldn't be actively counter-acting natural law.


Thomistic based social-morality? Don't know as much Aquinas as I should. #badcatholic

[Amory]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1343969426' post='2461884']
Sorry. I didn't mean anything by it. It's not even that I disagree a lot of the times with what you say, but [i]how[/i] you say it. It's sometimes the spirit behind what you say appears to be . . . less than pleasant




So do you think that a reasonable compromise would be for "the state to get outta the marriage business"? Or are you more in line with KoC that the state should promote the "traditional definition of marriage"

I tend to think this entanglement of the state and morality is part of the reason for the mess we are in now. You wouldn't have people crying for the state to approve gay marriages if they didn't think it [i]meant[/i] something, or had some moral value.

If the state stopped granting any recognition for marriage period (but recognized contracts made between any number of people) it may not be exactly encouraging "legit" marriages, but at least it wouldn't be actively counter-acting natural law.


Thomistic based social-morality? Don't know as much Aquinas as I should. #badcatholic
[/quote]

According to Thomistic political thought, the state is responsible for promoting the common good, which includes the moral good of the community. There are all sorts of instances where the government is not required to criminalize a particular sin because it would cause greater harm than good; however, saying the government should as a rule refrain from "legislating morality" has no part in a Thomistic political worldview.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343773659' post='2460865']
As I've pointed out before, in states where so-called "gay-marriage" continues to not be legally recognized, homosexuals are free to live together, sodomize one another, and even have church "marriage" ceremonies with rings and such if they wish. The state simply does not give any legal recognition to their sodomitic housekeeping as a "marriage."

[/quote]

It's so strange that with people like you out there so many homosexuals are just totally repelled by Christianity and Christians.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Hasan

[Amppax]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1344021410' post='2462254']
It's so strange that with people like you out there so many homosexuals are just totally repelled by Christianity and Christians.
[/quote]

You seem cranky, want a hug?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Amppax

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1343969426' post='2461884']
So do you think that a reasonable compromise would be for "the state to get outta the marriage business"? Or are you more in line with KoC that the state should promote the "traditional definition of marriage"

I tend to think this entanglement of the state and morality is part of the reason for the mess we are in now. You wouldn't have people crying for the state to approve gay marriages if they didn't think it [i]meant[/i] something, or had some moral value.

If the state stopped granting any recognition for marriage period (but recognized contracts made between any number of people) it may not be exactly encouraging "legit" marriages, but at least it wouldn't be actively counter-acting natural law.[/quote]
I'm in line with the teaching of the Church that "The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society," and that we as Catholics are morally obligated to oppose any legal recognition of homosexual "unions."

"The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour[b] or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.[/b]"

In fact, for Catholic politicians to vote in favor of legal recognition of homosexual unions is condemned as gravely immoral.

"When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, [b]the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.[/b]"

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html[/url]

The mess we're in now is not because of the "entanglement" of government and morality, but a lack of morality in both the government and the voting citizenry.

Removing all moral considerations from law and government will bring neither justice nor freedom, but simply immoral government and immoral laws.

The regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot or prime examples of government "unentangled" by morality.

[quote]Thomistic based social-morality? Don't know as much Aquinas as I should. #badcatholic[/quote]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1343973475' post='2461905']
According to Thomistic political thought, the state is responsible for promoting the common good, which includes the moral good of the community. There are all sorts of instances where the government is not required to criminalize a particular sin because it would cause greater harm than good; however, saying the government should as a rule refrain from "legislating morality" has no part in a Thomistic political worldview.
[/quote]
Exactly. The idea that the law or government must have nothing to do with morality is bogus. Certain moral evils may be[i] tolerated[/i] by the state if the process of enforcing against them would likely result in greater evil, but the state must never actively condone or reward evil. For instance, one could oppose anti-sodomy laws on that ground, but a Thomist would never support the state actively supporting or rewarding immoral behavior by such things as granting special legal recognition to sodomitic "unions."

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1344203329' post='2463095']

Exactly. [b] The idea that the law or government must have nothing to do with morality is bogus. Certain moral evils may be[i] tolerated[/i] by the state if the process of enforcing against them would likely result in greater evil, but the state must never actively condone or reward evil. For instance, one could oppose anti-sodomy laws on that ground, but a Thomist would never support the state actively supporting or rewarding immoral behavior by such things as granting special legal recognition to sodomitic "unions."[/b]
[/quote]

Right. And this is why the idea that you are actually a small-government conservative is a joke.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1344211001' post='2463166']


Right. And this is why the idea that you are actually a small-government conservative is a joke.
[/quote]I think Soc has certain principles as a higher importance than a slavish fawning desire to meet your stereotypes.

[4588686]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1344221894' post='2463280']
I think Soc has certain principles as a higher importance than a slavish fawning desire to meet your stereotypes.
[/quote]

Right. Well it is my irrational prejudice that in the American context when somebody says that they are a small government conservative they mean something less akin to the theoretical framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran (only with the Church rather than the Supreme Leader refereeing to ensure that no 'democratic' action exceeds the limits) and something more akin to Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Hasan

[Amory]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1344211001' post='2463166']
Right. And this is why the idea that you are actually a small-government conservative is a joke.
[/quote]

And why isn't a mixture of different legal responses an acceptable response?

One doesn't need to apply an abstract principle all the way across the board without consideration for the common good. One can argue that government in general should be smaller but in particular instances should be larger or stay where it is. Perhaps certain areas should be relatively free of government control (such as the market) while others should involve government action (such as public morals). Also, perhaps the problem isn't so much a large government as it is a large [i]federal[/i] government, with more active state governments being desirable.

[Amory]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1344021410' post='2462254']
It's so strange that with people like you out there so many homosexuals are just totally repelled by Christianity and Christians.
[/quote]

Yes, it's so strange that those who live a life that is directly condemned by (historical) Christianity are repelled by it.

If our religious culture were more critical of divorcé(e)s who remarry--as it should be--they'd probably be equally repelled, as most people don't enjoy the way they (seemingly happily) live their everyday lives being condemned.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1344211001' post='2463166']
Right. And this is why the idea that you are actually a small-government conservative is a joke.
[/quote]
Your face is a joke.

As is your "logic."

Whether or not a a government recognizes moral principles is irrelevant as to the size and scope of government.

The most brutally statist and totalitarian regimes in history were atheistic, and explicitly rejected Christian morality.

All the American founding fathers agreed that virtue and morality are indispensable to maintaining a free republic.
Rejection of "traditional" moral restraints certainly did nothing to contain the scope of government under Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot (nor does it seem to slow the growth of government under Obama, for that matter.)

Besides, if this is what you're getting at, there's really nothing "small government" about the state expanding legal benefits to sodomitic couples. It's a joke how many of those who claim they "want government out of the marriage business" are so eager to expand government into the same-sex sodomy business. I don't really think that you can seriously argue that our country was more "big government" in all the years prior to Massachusetts legalizing "gay marriage" in 2004.

And, besides, I never claimed to be a libertarian [i]a la[/i] Ron Paul. I'm a Catholic before I'm "small government," "big government," "conservative," "liberal," or whatever other labels you might want to throw at me.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1344221894' post='2463280']
I think Soc has certain principles as a higher importance than a slavish fawning desire to meet your stereotypes.
[/quote]
Indeed.

The nerve of me!