Cardinal Dolan And Vp Biden

[dominicansoul]

is 8 the limit now, because I'm thinking more like 20...

[Luigi]

I think that's what is ultimately at issue — imposing personal beliefs on the general public.  The Constitution grants the right of free practice of religion and its associated beliefs, and it isn't the place of the Government to legislate one version of morals over the other.

 

Specifically in the case of same-sex marriages, as it stands right now, the Government (via the law) is saying that two consenting adults of the same sex cannot be granted secular marriage licenses.  It should not be doing this.  Allowing the granting of licenses to same-sex couples is not legislating an anti-Christian morality, because it is not preventing "traditional" marriage, but rather, it is allowing for a differing set of beliefs about marriage to be legitimately practiced.

 

I completely disagree. All beliefs are personal. Anyone who lobbies one way or another for any law is trying to impose her personal beliefs on the general public. Government DOES legislate one version of morals over the other, every time it passes a law. That's why it's illegal to kill, steal, own slaves, use certain drugs,marry your first cousin, or have multiple spouses - those are all based on some version of morality. That's why government provides medical care, disability payments, housing, welfare, and food stamps - those are all based on some version of morality. That's why businesses are required to pay a minimum wage (a "decent living wage"), individuals are required to pay taxes (to provide services to those who can't provide for themselves), children are required to attend school until age 16, and men are required to register for the draft - those are all based on some version of morality.

 

The difference is that through most of American history, the vast majority of Americans (voters - the people whose opinions the government is supposed to enact into law) accepted basically the same version of morality. The culture is shifting now, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to find a commonly held version of morality on which to base laws.

[Fidei Defensor]

I completely disagree. All beliefs are personal. Anyone who lobbies one way or another for any law is trying to impose her personal beliefs on the general public. Government DOES legislate one version of morals over the other, every time it passes a law. That's why it's illegal to kill, steal, own slaves, use certain drugs,marry your first cousin, or have multiple spouses - those are all based on some version of morality. That's why government provides medical care, disability payments, housing, welfare, and food stamps - those are all based on some version of morality. That's why businesses are required to pay a minimum wage (a "decent living wage"), individuals are required to pay taxes (to provide services to those who can't provide for themselves), children are required to attend school until age 16, and men are required to register for the draft - those are all based on some version of morality.

 

The difference is that through most of American history, the vast majority of Americans (voters - the people whose opinions the government is supposed to enact into law) accepted basically the same version of morality. The culture is shifting now, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to find a commonly held version of morality on which to base laws.

I think you will find that for most law, you will find good reason and evidence beside a simple "it's just moral."

 

But of course, I should just have faith that the laws are for my own good, right? No evidence needed ;)

[Apotheoun]

I think you will find that for most law, you will find good reason and evidence beside a simple "it's just moral."

That is your opinion.

[Fidei Defensor]

That is your opinion.

Correct. And it is supported by the fact that almost any law you look at has a practical purpose — safety, security, health. I would say that those reasons are good evidence that a law is useful besides just pointing to some vague "morality" reason.

[Luigi]

I think you will find that for most law, you will find good reason and evidence beside a simple "it's just moral."

 

But of course, I should just have faith that the laws are for my own good, right? No evidence needed ;)

 

I agree that most (good) law is supported by good reason and evidence. And so is most morality. Morality and law have usually coincided in successful, productive cultures/societies.

 

As I read it the current culture/society, many people no longer see the good reason and evidence in morality, so they want to change the laws.

[Apotheoun]

Correct. And it is supported by the fact that almost any law you look at has a practical purpose — safety, security, health. I would say that those reasons are good evidence that a law is useful besides just pointing to some vague "morality" reason.

You have just admitted that Luigi's post is correct. The enacting of laws is based upon opinion. Why is your opinion of what should be legal more valid than Luigi's? The problem with your posts so far is that you have just expressed your opinion without trying to say why you believe as you do. Luigi, as a Catholic, has the entire history of Catholic doctrine, moral theology, and the natural law teachings of the Church as a reason for believing what he does about this issue. You may not agree with those things, but at least Luigi has something that stands behind what he believes.

[Fidei Defensor]

You have just admitted that Luigi's post is correct. The enacting of laws is based upon opinion. Why is your opinion of what should be legal more valid than Luigi's? The problem with your posts so far is that you have just expressed your opinion without trying to say why you believe as you do. Luigi, as a Catholic, has the entire history of Catholic doctrine, moral theology, and the natural law teachings of the Church as a reason for believing what he does about this issue. You may not agree with those things, but at least Luigi has something that stands behind what he believes.

 

And Luigi has admitted that my post is correct, that most laws have good reason to be law.

 

I venture to guess that most of my opinions on what ought to be law will agree with your opinions on what ought to be law.  However, I am quite comfortable admitting that there is no ultimate "source" of morality beside the so called "collective good."  I have some personal theories that are tied to my understanding of biology that I won't get into. 

 

The issue is, however, that claiming God and faith as an ultimate source of morality and laws does not exempt one for presenting good reasons and evidence for those laws.  I am amazed at the apparent disdain for logic and reason when it is something that was allegedly a gift from God!

[Apotheoun]

The issue is, however, that claiming God and faith as an ultimate source of morality and laws does not exempt one for presenting good reasons and evidence for those laws.  I am amazed at the apparent disdain for logic and reason when it is something that was allegedly a gift from God!

And over the centuries the Church has done that. The Church has always argued from a natural law perspective, and has always looked at the order of creation to determine if a particular action conforms to man's nature. That you do not agree with the Church is fine, but it would be helpful if you could explain how behavior that distorts the proper end of the conjugal act should be endorsed by the government.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Fidei Defensor]

And over the centuries the Church has done that. The Church has always argued from a natural law perspective, and has always looked at the order of creation to determine if a particular action conforms to man's nature. That you do not agree with the Church is fine, but it would be helpful if you could explain how behavior that distorts the proper end of the conjugal act should be endorsed by the government.

No one is distorting anything to do with "the conjugal act." Who said heterosexual couples can't procreate?  

 

I think what you mean to say is that the government shouldn't endorse an alternative lifestyle that you see as sinful.  The conjugal act can only ever occur between a man and a woman because a conjugal act is inherently linked to procreation.  However, two men or two women can have sexual relations, which no way affect you or your sacrament of marriage.

 

I wish Christians would spend more energy coming out against divorce. Divorce is arguably more destructive to the family unit than unconventional same-sex families are.

[Luigi]

And over the centuries the Church has done that. The Church has always argued from a natural law perspective, and has always looked at the order of creation to determine if a particular action conforms to man's nature.

That's what I was trying to say. Thank you for being more articulate.

[Apotheoun]

No one is distorting anything to do with "the conjugal act." Who said heterosexual couples can't procreate?  

 

I think what you mean to say is that the government shouldn't endorse an alternative lifestyle that you see as sinful.  The conjugal act can only ever occur between a man and a woman because a conjugal act is inherently linked to procreation.  However, two men or two women can have sexual relations, which no way affect you or your sacrament of marriage.

 

I wish Christians would spend more energy coming out against divorce. Divorce is arguably more destructive to the family unit than unconventional same-sex families are.

Obviously I am opposed to the government endorsing immoral activity as "legal", because that involves making everyone assent to something contrary to nature. It is not like I am advocating a change in what has always been recognized by our society as normative. But if the government tries to alter the historical understanding of marriage, which has formed the foundation of our society, by saying that two men can marry, or two women can marry, it obviously puts Christians into a situation where they must actively oppose the "law" and the government.

[Apotheoun]

I wish Christians would spend more energy coming out against divorce. Divorce is arguably more destructive to the family unit than unconventional same-sex families are.

I am against divorce and I am against "same-sex marriage". Both are destructive.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Fidei Defensor]

Obviously I am opposed to the government endorsing immoral activity as "legal", because that involves making everyone assent to something contrary to nature. It is not like I am advocating a change in what has always been recognized by our society as normative. But if the government tries to alter the historical understanding of marriage, which has formed the foundation of our society, by saying that two men can marry, or two women can marry, it obviously puts Christians into a situation where they must actively oppose the "law" and the government.

I view it as an "in addition to" rather than "instead of." Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. Two members of the same sex getting married is not traditional marriage.  What does it matter to anyone what other people do between themselves? You have to right to believe and act according to your own conscious but not the right to restrict others from doing the same. 

[Kateri89]

I completely disagree. All beliefs are personal. Anyone who lobbies one way or another for any law is trying to impose her personal beliefs on the general public. Government DOES legislate one version of morals over the other, every time it passes a law. That's why it's illegal to kill, steal, own slaves, use certain drugs,marry your first cousin, or have multiple spouses - those are all based on some version of morality. That's why government provides medical care, disability payments, housing, welfare, and food stamps - those are all based on some version of morality. That's why businesses are required to pay a minimum wage (a "decent living wage"), individuals are required to pay taxes (to provide services to those who can't provide for themselves), children are required to attend school until age 16, and men are required to register for the draft - those are all based on some version of morality.

 

The difference is that through most of American history, the vast majority of Americans (voters - the people whose opinions the government is supposed to enact into law) accepted basically the same version of morality. The culture is shifting now, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to find a commonly held version of morality on which to base laws.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.   :proud:   For so long, Christians have backed down because we don't want to impose our beliefs on others, all the while passively accepting sinful practices to the point where our voices are being silenced and yet many of us still walk on egg shells so as not to offend anyone.  Anyone, like our VP who praises China's one child policy or supports Planned Parenthood, should be excommunicated.  Abortion is a grave sin and a sin of such gravity warrants excommunication.  If the liberal media wants to spin it so that it looks like the Church is unforgiving and unaccepting, we should just expect it and move on.