What Do You Think Of These Reasons Why Ssm Affects Marriage?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Basically, it is wrong to award special legal recognition and benefits as something good to something that is intrinsically wrong and immoral, which is why the Church cannot accept homosexual "civil unions." - unpopular as the Church's position may be among phatmassers.

 

There is absolutely no reason why people in a homosexual "relationship" should be entitled to any special benefits not awarded any other single (unmarried) person.

 

Somehow unmarried persons (be they "straight," "gay," or whatever) have managed to do okay without being treated legally the same as married persons.  There's nothing about being in a homosexual that entitles a person to special legal, medical, or tax benefits he/she would not have if living a single life.

I agree with your post entirely. I would add that the state should have no right to give special privileges to any married person. 

[Socrates]

I agree with your post entirely. I would add that the state should have no right to give special privileges to any married person. 

 

The Church regards marriage between a man and a woman as an essential good to human society (being the best arrangement for the procreation and raising of children), and thus teaches that the law has a duty to "recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society." 

 

(See the document I cited earlier for more details.)

 

The tax and financial benefits of marriage are actually rather small, and today children are major financial burden.

 

That said, I'd prefer the government eliminate income taxes on everybody, regardless of marital status.  There are probably other ways for the law to recognize, promote and protect marriage.

 

While I think society and law should recognize and promote true marriage and family, I do have more respect for the "get government out of marriage" position than I do for the argument that government must grant homosexual couples the same status as married men and women in order to be "fair."

[CatholicsAreKewl]

The Church regards marriage between a man and a woman as an essential good to human society (being the best arrangement for the procreation and raising of children), and thus teaches that the law has a duty to "recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society." 

 

(See the document I cited earlier for more details.)

 

The tax and financial benefits of marriage are actually rather small, and today children are major financial burden.

 

 I would be more willing to accept this argument if it only applied to those who raise children. Two friends who are not married can also adopt. I don't want my tax money to support a life-style choice, especially when there are some couples who have NO business being married. Take this example:

 

Bill and Mary are in love and want to get married. Mary is a weight-lifter. Bill is a twig. Mary has spouse beating tendencies. I do not endorse this marriage. I do not want them to get a tax break for the sake of defending the institute of marriage. This is not the state's purpose. 

[Socrates]

 I would be more willing to accept this argument if it only applied to those who raise children. Two friends who are not married can also adopt. I don't want my tax money to support a life-style choice, especially when there are some couples who have NO business being married. Take this example:

 

Bill and Mary are in love and want to get married. Mary is a weight-lifter. Bill is a twig. Mary has spouse beating tendencies. I do not endorse this marriage. I do not want them to get a tax break for the sake of defending the institute of marriage. This is not the state's purpose. 

 

Obviously, there are bad, dysfunctional marriages, but as a whole, it is best that children are raised by their mother and father - and marriage and the family as an institution that is good and should be supported.

 

Human beings will have sex and make babies regardless of marriage, and overall it is much better that children be born to and raised by a mother and father in a committed, life-long monogamous relationship (provided for by the terms of marriage) - as opposed to being born to promiscuous parents in a casual or temporary hook-up, and raised by a single mother, or one in a series of short-lived "relationships" to various uncommitted men.    All the data we have supports this.  There is currently an epidemic of children being abused by their mothers' current live-in boyfriend (not their father).  Married fathers of children are far less likely to be abusive to their children, than boyfriends not their father.

 

If you want to talk about the state supporting lifestyles, with the breakdown of marriage and the family, and the rise of promiscuity and single motherhood in today's society, we have a huge increase in the tax-supported welfare state - a much bigger burden on society than modest tax breaks for married couples.

 

I think no-fault divorce has already done more damage to the family and society than "gay marriage" will, though both are wrong.

 

While it can certainly be debated what is the best means of doing so, I definitely think marriage and the family is an institution that should be encouraged and supported by law and society.

[God the Father]

I'm pretty much in favor of gay marriage but it's definitely a symptom of the godlessness that will eventually destroy the country and the Western World.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Human beings will have sex and make babies regardless of marriage, and overall it is much better that children be born to and raised by a mother and father in a committed, life-long monogamous relationship (provided for by the terms of marriage) - as opposed to being born to promiscuous parents in a casual or temporary hook-up, and raised by a single mother, or one in a series of short-lived "relationships" to various uncommitted men.    All the data we have supports this.  There is currently an epidemic of children being abused by their mothers' current live-in boyfriend (not their father).  Married fathers of children are far less likely to be abusive to their children, than boyfriends not their father.

 

The data we have also indicates that a same-sex couple are just as capable at raising children. I think it's hard to base our decisions on this data because we may end up ignoring other variables. Also, what is our government really supporting? The divorce rate is pretty high. Giving people the incentive to get married seems to feed the whole "let's get married even though we have problems" attitude. If people have to work a lot harder to get married, they might start taking marriage seriously.

 

 

 

 

If you want to talk about the state supporting lifestyles, with the breakdown of marriage and the family, and the rise of promiscuity and single motherhood in today's society, we have a huge increase in the tax-supported welfare state - a much bigger burden on society than modest tax breaks for married couples.

I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves by concluding that those are the reasons behind what you are describing. However, I'm also against welfare. 

 

 

 

I think no-fault divorce has already done more damage to the family and society than "gay marriage" will, though both are wrong.

I see marriage as a contract between two individuals. Those two have the right to end that contract, even if it's immoral. 

 

 

While it can certainly be debated what is the best means of doing so, I definitely think marriage and the family is an institution that should be encouraged and supported by law and society.

I would have to respectfully disagree. I think the law shouldn't encourage a certain version of marriage. The government having that power annoys me because it allows people of different beliefs to use that power in a way that I would disagree with.

Allowing this sort of social engineering to begin with is only convenient if your side wins.  Let's say, for some crazy reason, our government was run exclusively by gays. These gays find some reason to decide that the government will only sanction gay marriage. Regardless what the arguments for or against doing this are, we face a real problem when the government has this power. 

 

Edited May 11, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Ice_nine]

One day I'm going to die, but before then, I will let the world know how right I am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We've been on this merry-go-round before.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

One day I'm going to die, but before then, I will let the world know how right I am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We've been on this merry-go-round before.

 

I like merry-go-rounds. I take it you're not the type to ride the same roller-coaster twice?

[Ice_nine]

twice? sure. After a certain number of times it loses it's appeal.

[Socrates]

The data we have also indicates that a same-sex couple are just as capable at raising children. I think it's hard to base our decisions on this data because we may end up ignoring other variables. Also, what is our government really supporting? The divorce rate is pretty high. Giving people the incentive to get married seems to feed the whole "let's get married even though we have problems" attitude. If people have to work a lot harder to get married, they might start taking marriage seriously.

 

 

There have been some reports out taking issue with the whole thing about same-sex couples being just as good at raising children as a mother and a father, which has been discussed on past threads, but honestly, right now I'm too lazy to go dig it all up and rehash it.  

Ideally, children should be raised by both a mother and a father.  A mother can provide some things a father can't, and vice-versa.  It's best that kids of both sexes have both a model of the same sex to look up to, as well as good example of the opposite sex, and how they should interact.

 

I've already said that I think the introduction of no-fault divorce is a huge problem in our society, as it destroys the indissolubility of marriage, and there is much evidence that divorce harms children.

 

However, the solution is returning to the idea of marriage as indissoluble, rather than having fewer marriages.  Fewer people are getting married than ever before, yet this hardly creates a better situation for the raising of children.  The problem now is hardly too much incentive to get married, or too many marriages.  Statistics universally show that children raised in an intact marriage with both a mother and a father are better off than those whose parents are not married.

 

When people don't get married, it's hardly a better situation for children.  Children whose parents are not married tend to be raised either by single moms or in a series of shack-ups with a string of uncommitted boyfriends - neither of which is generally preferable to being raised by a mother and father who stay together.

People need to take marriage more seriously, but our current culture of casual sex, promiscuity, and lack of commitment is definitely not making anything better.

 

 

 

I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves by concluding that those are the reasons behind what you are describing. However, I'm also against welfare. 

 

The decline of marriage and the family and the rise of the welfare state and big government go hand-in-hand.  There is a very strong positive correlation between marriage and success and prosperity.  In inner city ghettos and other societies where promiscuity and fatherlessness are rampant, and marriage is practically non-existent, there is a downward spiral or poverty, crime, and drugs.  Where marriage and intact families are common, there is more prosperity, and less crime and other social problems.

 

Where fatherlessness is common, and marriage rare, the government tends to take on more of the roles traditionally filled by fathers/husbands, and single mothers tend to support more big government policies.

 

 

 

 

 

I see marriage as a contract between two individuals. Those two have the right to end that contract, even if it's immoral. 

 

 

I would have to respectfully disagree. I think the law shouldn't encourage a certain version of marriage. The government having that power annoys me because it allows people of different beliefs to use that power in a way that I would disagree with.

Allowing this sort of social engineering to begin with is only convenient if your side wins.  Let's say, for some crazy reason, our government was run exclusively by gays. These gays find some reason to decide that the government will only sanction gay marriage. Regardless what the arguments for or against doing this are, we face a real problem when the government has this power. 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m not arguing for social engineering – simply against the state legally redefining “marriage” to something it is not.  It is this redefinition of marriage that is social engineering. 

 

This isn’t about granting the government any new powers, only advocating keeping the legal meaning of marriage to mean what it’s always meant.

Prior to less than a decade ago, homosexual shack-ups were never legally recognized as “marriage.”  Homosexual relationships have nothing to do with marriage or children. 

This is not about only recognizing “a certain kind of marriage,” but about only recognizing actual marriages (between a man and woman).  Any other kind of “marriage” is bogus.

Government should not have the power to redefine “marriage.”

Making up absurd and unrealistic hypotheticals will not change this.

 

I realize, you probably disagree, but you can at least see where the Church is coming from in its teaching.

 

I’m personally for “tax breaks” for all, but think legal recognition of marriage should stay limited to marriages  - between man and woman.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There have been some reports out taking issue with the whole thing about same-sex couples being just as good at raising children as a mother and a father, which has been discussed on past threads, but honestly, right now I'm too lazy to go dig it all up and rehash it.  

Ideally, children should be raised by both a mother and a father.  A mother can provide some things a father can't, and vice-versa.  It's best that kids of both sexes have both a model of the same sex to look up to, as well as good example of the opposite sex, and how they should interact.

 

I would love it if you could find this for me. From what I understand, there is little evidence to show that gay couples cannot raise children as well as straight parents. I am interested in seeing the other side on this however...

 

 

"I've already said that I think the introduction of no-fault divorce is a huge problem in our society, as it destroys the indissolubility of marriage, and there is much evidence that divorce harms children." <--- Socrates

 

 

I agree. However, I'm sure we will both agree that a dysfunctional relationship between two parents (especially one that includes physical and emotional abuse) would have a much worse effect on children. Also, who is the government to decide whether a divorce is necessary or not? 

 

 

However, the solution is returning to the idea of marriage as indissoluble, rather than having fewer marriages.  Fewer people are getting married than ever before, yet this hardly creates a better situation for the raising of children.  The problem now is hardly too much incentive to get married, or too many marriages.  Statistics universally show that children raised in an intact marriage with both a mother and a father are better off than those whose parents are not married.

 

Socrates, this is a good point. However, we should be careful before we base such a conclusion on this evidence. The results are already skewed because married couples who raise a child probably have a healthier relationship than divorced couples. It seems to me that it would more negatively affect a child to be raised by parents who dislike each other enough to divorce than it would to be raised by two normal divorced parents. 

 

 

When people don't get married, it's hardly a better situation for children.  Children whose parents are not married tend to be raised either by single moms or in a series of shack-ups with a string of uncommitted boyfriends - neither of which is generally preferable to being raised by a mother and father who stay together.

 

Though this is true, it is hard for the state to seriously inspect every relationship. The government can't even maintain our roads, how could it monitor our relationships? 

 

 

"People need to take marriage more seriously, but our current culture of casual sex, promiscuity, and lack of commitment is definitely not making anything better." <- Socrates
 

People should have the ability to decide whether they wish to have sex with 1 person a night or 1000. Enforcing such standards on society is very dangerous. What if our government is overtaken by Salifi Muslims who consider unveiled women to be just as offensive? 

 

 

 

 

The decline of marriage and the family and the rise of the welfare state and big government go hand-in-hand.  There is a very strong positive correlation between marriage and success and prosperity.  In inner city ghettos and other societies where promiscuity and fatherlessness are rampant, and marriage is practically non-existent, there is a downward spiral or poverty, crime, and drugs.  Where marriage and intact families are common, there is more prosperity, and less crime and other social problems.

Correlation does not equal causation. In area "A" there are a lot of fires. Many firemen frequent area "A". Does that mean that these firemen are arsonists? It's easy to mix up the data. However, like I said earlier, I welcome any opportunity to be proven wrong. Please show me the evidence that divorce is the cause of these problems.  

 

"Where fatherlessness is common, and marriage rare, the government tends to take on more of the roles traditionally filled by fathers/husbands, and single mothers tend to support more big government policies." <--- Socrates

 

Interesting, but I have a few questions. Is this proven? Do these single mothers make up a majority of the female population? Do enough of them vote to make such a difference? 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m not arguing for social engineering – simply against the state legally redefining “marriage” to something it is not.  It is this redefinition of marriage that is social engineering.

My friend, the state redefining marriage for the Catholic Church would be social engineering. What I am advocating for is not. If the state does not actively police and sanction a contract between two people, it is not redefining anything. In my opinion, marriage is cheapened by the state's approval of it. 

 

 

This isn’t about granting the government any new powers, only advocating keeping the legal meaning of marriage to mean what it’s always meant.

 

We both know that marriage wasn't always between one man and one woman. I believe the government shouldn't have the ability to control such a contract. Like I said earlier, giving the government this much power is only convenient if your side wins.

 

 

 

"This is not about only recognizing 'a certain kind of marriage,' but about only recognizing actual marriages (between a man and woman).  Any other kind of “marriage” is bogus." <--- Socrates

 

Allowing the government to recognize a certain form of marriage is insulting. If I could, I would prefer to not have my marriage approved by our government. Heterosexual state approved marriage offends me just as much as state approved gay marriage. 

 

 

Government should not have the power to redefine “marriage.”

Making up absurd and unrealistic hypotheticals will not change this.

I am not advocating a redefinition of marriage. I am advocating for the government to stay out of my bedroom. These sorts of laws are small steps away from those found in Saudi Arabia. 

 

 

 

I realize, you probably disagree, but you can at least see where the Church is coming from in its teaching.

I agree. I don't think the Church preaches that each state must offer incentives for straight marriage. However, if I am wrong, I would argue that this is a political issue, not a moral one. The Church has made mistakes before dealing with politics, science, and anything not dealing with religion. Freedom to fail is extremely important. 

 

 

I’m personally for “tax breaks” for all, but think legal recognition of marriage should stay limited to marriages  - between man and woman.

In a legal perspective, marriage is merely a contract between two people. In a religious perspective, the most important entity to sanction a marriage is a Church, not a state. I don't want the government to recognize my marriage. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There have been some reports out taking issue with the whole thing about same-sex couples being just as good at raising children as a mother and a father, which has been discussed on past threads, but honestly, right now I'm too lazy to go dig it all up and rehash it.  

Ideally, children should be raised by both a mother and a father.  A mother can provide some things a father can't, and vice-versa.  It's best that kids of both sexes have both a model of the same sex to look up to, as well as good example of the opposite sex, and how they should interact.

 

I would love it if you could find this for me. From what I understand, there is little evidence to show that gay couples cannot raise children as well as straight parents. I am interested in seeing the other side on this however...

 

 

"I've already said that I think the introduction of no-fault divorce is a huge problem in our society, as it destroys the indissolubility of marriage, and there is much evidence that divorce harms children." <--- Socrates

 

 

I agree. However, I'm sure we will both agree that a dysfunctional relationship between two parents (especially one that includes physical and emotional abuse) would have a much worse effect on children. Also, who is the government to decide whether a divorce is necessary or not? 

 

 

However, the solution is returning to the idea of marriage as indissoluble, rather than having fewer marriages.  Fewer people are getting married than ever before, yet this hardly creates a better situation for the raising of children.  The problem now is hardly too much incentive to get married, or too many marriages.  Statistics universally show that children raised in an intact marriage with both a mother and a father are better off than those whose parents are not married.

 

Socrates, this is a good point. However, we should be careful before we base such a conclusion on this evidence. The results are already skewed because married couples who raise a child probably have a healthier relationship than divorced couples. It seems to me that it would more negatively affect a child to be raised by parents who dislike each other enough to divorce than it would to be raised by two normal divorced parents. 

 

 

When people don't get married, it's hardly a better situation for children.  Children whose parents are not married tend to be raised either by single moms or in a series of shack-ups with a string of uncommitted boyfriends - neither of which is generally preferable to being raised by a mother and father who stay together.

 

Though this is true, it is hard for the state to seriously inspect every relationship. The government can't even maintain our roads, how could it monitor our relationships? 

 

 

"People need to take marriage more seriously, but our current culture of casual sex, promiscuity, and lack of commitment is definitely not making anything better." <- Socrates
 

People should have the ability to decide whether they wish to have sex with 1 person a night or 1000. Enforcing such standards on society is very dangerous. What if our government is overtaken by Salifi Muslims who consider unveiled women to be just as offensive? 

 

 

 

 

The decline of marriage and the family and the rise of the welfare state and big government go hand-in-hand.  There is a very strong positive correlation between marriage and success and prosperity.  In inner city ghettos and other societies where promiscuity and fatherlessness are rampant, and marriage is practically non-existent, there is a downward spiral or poverty, crime, and drugs.  Where marriage and intact families are common, there is more prosperity, and less crime and other social problems.

Correlation does not equal causation. In area "A" there are a lot of fires. Many firemen frequent area "A". Does that mean that these firemen are arsonists? It's easy to mix up the data. However, like I said earlier, I welcome any opportunity to be proven wrong. Please show me the evidence that divorce is the cause of these problems.  

 

"Where fatherlessness is common, and marriage rare, the government tends to take on more of the roles traditionally filled by fathers/husbands, and single mothers tend to support more big government policies." <--- Socrates

 

Interesting, but I have a few questions. Is this proven? Do these single mothers make up a majority of the female population? Do enough of them vote to make such a difference? 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m not arguing for social engineering – simply against the state legally redefining “marriage” to something it is not.  It is this redefinition of marriage that is social engineering.

My friend, the state redefining marriage for the Catholic Church would be social engineering. What I am advocating for is not. If the state does not actively police and sanction a contract between two people, it is not redefining anything. In my opinion, marriage is cheapened by the state's approval of it. 

 

 

This isn’t about granting the government any new powers, only advocating keeping the legal meaning of marriage to mean what it’s always meant.

 

We both know that marriage wasn't always between one man and one woman. I believe the government shouldn't have the ability to control such a contract. Like I said earlier, giving the government this much power is only convenient if your side wins.

 

 

 

"This is not about only recognizing 'a certain kind of marriage,' but about only recognizing actual marriages (between a man and woman).  Any other kind of “marriage” is bogus." <--- Socrates

 

Allowing the government to recognize a certain form of marriage is insulting. If I could, I would prefer to not have my marriage approved by our government. Heterosexual state approved marriage offends me just as much as state approved gay marriage. 

 

 

Government should not have the power to redefine “marriage.”

Making up absurd and unrealistic hypotheticals will not change this.

I am not advocating a redefinition of marriage. I am advocating for the government to stay out of my bedroom. These sorts of laws are small steps away from those found in Saudi Arabia. 

 

 

 

I realize, you probably disagree, but you can at least see where the Church is coming from in its teaching.

I agree. I don't think the Church preaches that each state must offer incentives for straight marriage. However, if I am wrong, I would argue that this is a political issue, not a moral one. The Church has made mistakes before dealing with politics, science, and anything not dealing with religion. Freedom to fail is extremely important. 

 

 

I’m personally for “tax breaks” for all, but think legal recognition of marriage should stay limited to marriages  - between man and woman.

In a legal perspective, marriage is merely a contract between two people. In a religious perspective, the most important entity to sanction a marriage is a Church, not a state. I don't want the government to recognize my marriage. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There have been some reports out taking issue with the whole thing about same-sex couples being just as good at raising children as a mother and a father, which has been discussed on past threads, but honestly, right now I'm too lazy to go dig it all up and rehash it.  

Ideally, children should be raised by both a mother and a father.  A mother can provide some things a father can't, and vice-versa.  It's best that kids of both sexes have both a model of the same sex to look up to, as well as good example of the opposite sex, and how they should interact.

 

I would love it if you could find this for me. From what I understand, there is little evidence to show that gay couples cannot raise children as well as straight parents. I am interested in seeing the other side on this however...

 

 

"I've already said that I think the introduction of no-fault divorce is a huge problem in our society, as it destroys the indissolubility of marriage, and there is much evidence that divorce harms children." <--- Socrates

 

 

I agree. However, I'm sure we will both agree that a dysfunctional relationship between two parents (especially one that includes physical and emotional abuse) would have a much worse effect on children. Also, who is the government to decide whether a divorce is necessary or not? 

 

 

However, the solution is returning to the idea of marriage as indissoluble, rather than having fewer marriages.  Fewer people are getting married than ever before, yet this hardly creates a better situation for the raising of children.  The problem now is hardly too much incentive to get married, or too many marriages.  Statistics universally show that children raised in an intact marriage with both a mother and a father are better off than those whose parents are not married.

 

Socrates, this is a good point. However, we should be careful before we base such a conclusion on this evidence. The results are already skewed because married couples who raise a child probably have a healthier relationship than divorced couples. It seems to me that it would more negatively affect a child to be raised by parents who dislike each other enough to divorce than it would to be raised by two normal divorced parents. 

 

 

When people don't get married, it's hardly a better situation for children.  Children whose parents are not married tend to be raised either by single moms or in a series of shack-ups with a string of uncommitted boyfriends - neither of which is generally preferable to being raised by a mother and father who stay together.

 

Though this is true, it is hard for the state to seriously inspect every relationship. The government can't even maintain our roads, how could it monitor our relationships? 

 

 

"People need to take marriage more seriously, but our current culture of casual sex, promiscuity, and lack of commitment is definitely not making anything better." <- Socrates
 

People should have the ability to decide whether they wish to have sex with 1 person a night or 1000. Enforcing such standards on society is very dangerous. What if our government is overtaken by Salifi Muslims who consider unveiled women to be just as offensive? 

 

 

 

 

The decline of marriage and the family and the rise of the welfare state and big government go hand-in-hand.  There is a very strong positive correlation between marriage and success and prosperity.  In inner city ghettos and other societies where promiscuity and fatherlessness are rampant, and marriage is practically non-existent, there is a downward spiral or poverty, crime, and drugs.  Where marriage and intact families are common, there is more prosperity, and less crime and other social problems.

Correlation does not equal causation. In area "A" there are a lot of fires. Many firemen frequent area "A". Does that mean that these firemen are arsonists? It's easy to mix up the data. However, like I said earlier, I welcome any opportunity to be proven wrong. Please show me the evidence that divorce is the cause of these problems.  

 

"Where fatherlessness is common, and marriage rare, the government tends to take on more of the roles traditionally filled by fathers/husbands, and single mothers tend to support more big government policies." <--- Socrates

 

Interesting, but I have a few questions. Is this proven? Do these single mothers make up a majority of the female population? Do enough of them vote to make such a difference? 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m not arguing for social engineering – simply against the state legally redefining “marriage” to something it is not.  It is this redefinition of marriage that is social engineering.

My friend, the state redefining marriage for the Catholic Church would be social engineering. What I am advocating for is not. If the state does not actively police and sanction a contract between two people, it is not redefining anything. In my opinion, marriage is cheapened by the state's approval of it. 

 

 

This isn’t about granting the government any new powers, only advocating keeping the legal meaning of marriage to mean what it’s always meant.

 

We both know that marriage wasn't always between one man and one woman. I believe the government shouldn't have the ability to control such a contract. Like I said earlier, giving the government this much power is only convenient if your side wins.

 

 

 

"This is not about only recognizing 'a certain kind of marriage,' but about only recognizing actual marriages (between a man and woman).  Any other kind of “marriage” is bogus." <--- Socrates

 

Allowing the government to recognize a certain form of marriage is insulting. If I could, I would prefer to not have my marriage approved by our government. Heterosexual state approved marriage offends me just as much as state approved gay marriage. 

 

 

Government should not have the power to redefine “marriage.”

Making up absurd and unrealistic hypotheticals will not change this.

I am not advocating a redefinition of marriage. I am advocating for the government to stay out of my bedroom. These sorts of laws are small steps away from those found in Saudi Arabia. 

 

 

 

I realize, you probably disagree, but you can at least see where the Church is coming from in its teaching.

I agree. I don't think the Church preaches that each state must offer incentives for straight marriage. However, if I am wrong, I would argue that this is a political issue, not a moral one. The Church has made mistakes before dealing with politics, science, and anything not dealing with religion. Freedom to fail is extremely important. 

 

 

I’m personally for “tax breaks” for all, but think legal recognition of marriage should stay limited to marriages  - between man and woman.

In a legal perspective, marriage is merely a contract between two people. In a religious perspective, the most important entity to sanction a marriage is a Church, not a state. I don't want the government to recognize my marriage. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There have been some reports out taking issue with the whole thing about same-sex couples being just as good at raising children as a mother and a father, which has been discussed on past threads, but honestly, right now I'm too lazy to go dig it all up and rehash it.  

Ideally, children should be raised by both a mother and a father.  A mother can provide some things a father can't, and vice-versa.  It's best that kids of both sexes have both a model of the same sex to look up to, as well as good example of the opposite sex, and how they should interact.

 

I would love it if you could find this for me. From what I understand, there is little evidence to show that gay couples cannot raise children as well as straight parents. I am interested in seeing the other side on this however...

 

 

"I've already said that I think the introduction of no-fault divorce is a huge problem in our society, as it destroys the indissolubility of marriage, and there is much evidence that divorce harms children." <--- Socrates

 

 

I agree. However, I'm sure we will both agree that a dysfunctional relationship between two parents (especially one that includes physical and emotional abuse) would have a much worse effect on children. Also, who is the government to decide whether a divorce is necessary or not? 

 

 

However, the solution is returning to the idea of marriage as indissoluble, rather than having fewer marriages.  Fewer people are getting married than ever before, yet this hardly creates a better situation for the raising of children.  The problem now is hardly too much incentive to get married, or too many marriages.  Statistics universally show that children raised in an intact marriage with both a mother and a father are better off than those whose parents are not married.

 

Socrates, this is a good point. However, we should be careful before we base such a conclusion on this evidence. The results are already skewed because married couples who raise a child probably have a healthier relationship than divorced couples. It seems to me that it would more negatively affect a child to be raised by parents who dislike each other enough to divorce than it would to be raised by two normal divorced parents. 

 

 

When people don't get married, it's hardly a better situation for children.  Children whose parents are not married tend to be raised either by single moms or in a series of shack-ups with a string of uncommitted boyfriends - neither of which is generally preferable to being raised by a mother and father who stay together.

 

Though this is true, it is hard for the state to seriously inspect every relationship. The government can't even maintain our roads, how could it monitor our relationships? 

 

 

"People need to take marriage more seriously, but our current culture of casual sex, promiscuity, and lack of commitment is definitely not making anything better." <- Socrates
 

People should have the ability to decide whether they wish to have sex with 1 person a night or 1000. Enforcing such standards on society is very dangerous. What if our government is overtaken by Salifi Muslims who consider unveiled women to be just as offensive? 

 

 

 

 

The decline of marriage and the family and the rise of the welfare state and big government go hand-in-hand.  There is a very strong positive correlation between marriage and success and prosperity.  In inner city ghettos and other societies where promiscuity and fatherlessness are rampant, and marriage is practically non-existent, there is a downward spiral or poverty, crime, and drugs.  Where marriage and intact families are common, there is more prosperity, and less crime and other social problems.

Correlation does not equal causation. In area "A" there are a lot of fires. Many firemen frequent area "A". Does that mean that these firemen are arsonists? It's easy to mix up the data. However, like I said earlier, I welcome any opportunity to be proven wrong. Please show me the evidence that divorce is the cause of these problems.  

 

"Where fatherlessness is common, and marriage rare, the government tends to take on more of the roles traditionally filled by fathers/husbands, and single mothers tend to support more big government policies." <--- Socrates

 

Interesting, but I have a few questions. Is this proven? Do these single mothers make up a majority of the female population? Do enough of them vote to make such a difference? 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m not arguing for social engineering – simply against the state legally redefining “marriage” to something it is not.  It is this redefinition of marriage that is social engineering.

My friend, the state redefining marriage for the Catholic Church would be social engineering. What I am advocating for is not. If the state does not actively police and sanction a contract between two people, it is not redefining anything. In my opinion, marriage is cheapened by the state's approval of it. 

 

 

This isn’t about granting the government any new powers, only advocating keeping the legal meaning of marriage to mean what it’s always meant.

 

We both know that marriage wasn't always between one man and one woman. I believe the government shouldn't have the ability to control such a contract. Like I said earlier, giving the government this much power is only convenient if your side wins.

 

 

 

"This is not about only recognizing 'a certain kind of marriage,' but about only recognizing actual marriages (between a man and woman).  Any other kind of “marriage” is bogus." <--- Socrates

 

Allowing the government to recognize a certain form of marriage is insulting. If I could, I would prefer to not have my marriage approved by our government. Heterosexual state approved marriage offends me just as much as state approved gay marriage. 

 

 

Government should not have the power to redefine “marriage.”

Making up absurd and unrealistic hypotheticals will not change this.

I am not advocating a redefinition of marriage. I am advocating for the government to stay out of my bedroom. These sorts of laws are small steps away from those found in Saudi Arabia. 

 

 

 

I realize, you probably disagree, but you can at least see where the Church is coming from in its teaching.

I agree. I don't think the Church preaches that each state must offer incentives for straight marriage. However, if I am wrong, I would argue that this is a political issue, not a moral one. The Church has made mistakes before dealing with politics, science, and anything not dealing with religion. Freedom to fail is extremely important. 

 

 

I’m personally for “tax breaks” for all, but think legal recognition of marriage should stay limited to marriages  - between man and woman.

In a legal perspective, marriage is merely a contract between two people. In a religious perspective, the most important entity to sanction a marriage is a Church, not a state. I don't want the government to recognize my marriage. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There have been some reports out taking issue with the whole thing about same-sex couples being just as good at raising children as a mother and a father, which has been discussed on past threads, but honestly, right now I'm too lazy to go dig it all up and rehash it.  

Ideally, children should be raised by both a mother and a father.  A mother can provide some things a father can't, and vice-versa.  It's best that kids of both sexes have both a model of the same sex to look up to, as well as good example of the opposite sex, and how they should interact.

 

I would love it if you could find this for me. From what I understand, there is little evidence to show that gay couples cannot raise children as well as straight parents. I am interested in seeing the other side on this however...

 

 

"I've already said that I think the introduction of no-fault divorce is a huge problem in our society, as it destroys the indissolubility of marriage, and there is much evidence that divorce harms children." <--- Socrates

 

 

I agree. However, I'm sure we will both agree that a dysfunctional relationship between two parents (especially one that includes physical and emotional abuse) would have a much worse effect on children. Also, who is the government to decide whether a divorce is necessary or not? 

 

 

However, the solution is returning to the idea of marriage as indissoluble, rather than having fewer marriages.  Fewer people are getting married than ever before, yet this hardly creates a better situation for the raising of children.  The problem now is hardly too much incentive to get married, or too many marriages.  Statistics universally show that children raised in an intact marriage with both a mother and a father are better off than those whose parents are not married.

 

Socrates, this is a good point. However, we should be careful before we base such a conclusion on this evidence. The results are already skewed because married couples who raise a child probably have a healthier relationship than divorced couples. It seems to me that it would more negatively affect a child to be raised by parents who dislike each other enough to divorce than it would to be raised by two normal divorced parents. 

 

 

When people don't get married, it's hardly a better situation for children.  Children whose parents are not married tend to be raised either by single moms or in a series of shack-ups with a string of uncommitted boyfriends - neither of which is generally preferable to being raised by a mother and father who stay together.

 

Though this is true, it is hard for the state to seriously inspect every relationship. The government can't even maintain our roads, how could it monitor our relationships? 

 

 

"People need to take marriage more seriously, but our current culture of casual sex, promiscuity, and lack of commitment is definitely not making anything better." <- Socrates
 

People should have the ability to decide whether they wish to have sex with 1 person a night or 1000. Enforcing such standards on society is very dangerous. What if our government is overtaken by Salifi Muslims who consider unveiled women to be just as offensive? 

 

 

 

 

The decline of marriage and the family and the rise of the welfare state and big government go hand-in-hand.  There is a very strong positive correlation between marriage and success and prosperity.  In inner city ghettos and other societies where promiscuity and fatherlessness are rampant, and marriage is practically non-existent, there is a downward spiral or poverty, crime, and drugs.  Where marriage and intact families are common, there is more prosperity, and less crime and other social problems.

Correlation does not equal causation. In area "A" there are a lot of fires. Many firemen frequent area "A". Does that mean that these firemen are arsonists? It's easy to mix up the data. However, like I said earlier, I welcome any opportunity to be proven wrong. Please show me the evidence that divorce is the cause of these problems.  

 

"Where fatherlessness is common, and marriage rare, the government tends to take on more of the roles traditionally filled by fathers/husbands, and single mothers tend to support more big government policies." <--- Socrates

 

Interesting, but I have a few questions. Is this proven? Do these single mothers make up a majority of the female population? Do enough of them vote to make such a difference? 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m not arguing for social engineering – simply against the state legally redefining “marriage” to something it is not.  It is this redefinition of marriage that is social engineering.

My friend, the state redefining marriage for the Catholic Church would be social engineering. What I am advocating for is not. If the state does not actively police and sanction a contract between two people, it is not redefining anything. In my opinion, marriage is cheapened by the state's approval of it. 

 

 

This isn’t about granting the government any new powers, only advocating keeping the legal meaning of marriage to mean what it’s always meant.

 

We both know that marriage wasn't always between one man and one woman. I believe the government shouldn't have the ability to control such a contract. Like I said earlier, giving the government this much power is only convenient if your side wins.

 

 

 

"This is not about only recognizing 'a certain kind of marriage,' but about only recognizing actual marriages (between a man and woman).  Any other kind of “marriage” is bogus." <--- Socrates

 

Allowing the government to recognize a certain form of marriage is insulting. If I could, I would prefer to not have my marriage approved by our government. Heterosexual state approved marriage offends me just as much as state approved gay marriage. 

 

 

Government should not have the power to redefine “marriage.”

Making up absurd and unrealistic hypotheticals will not change this.

I am not advocating a redefinition of marriage. I am advocating for the government to stay out of my bedroom. These sorts of laws are small steps away from those found in Saudi Arabia. 

 

 

 

I realize, you probably disagree, but you can at least see where the Church is coming from in its teaching.

I agree. I don't think the Church preaches that each state must offer incentives for straight marriage. However, if I am wrong, I would argue that this is a political issue, not a moral one. The Church has made mistakes before dealing with politics, science, and anything not dealing with religion. Freedom to fail is extremely important. 

 

 

I’m personally for “tax breaks” for all, but think legal recognition of marriage should stay limited to marriages  - between man and woman.

In a legal perspective, marriage is merely a contract between two people. In a religious perspective, the most important entity to sanction a marriage is a Church, not a state. I don't want the government to recognize my marriage.