What Do You Think Of These Reasons Why Ssm Affects 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. 

[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]

whoa. 

[Nihil Obstat]

whoa. 

[Ice_nine]

I didn't understand your first post, but by the third or fourth it was starting to sink in, by the eighth I was intrigued. The ninth post had me fully convinced but the tenth one made me rethink everything you had to say.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I didn't understand your first post, but by the third or fourth it was starting to sink in, by the eighth I was intrigued. The ninth post had me fully convinced but the tenth one made me rethink everything you had to say.

Mission accomplished.  :crazyshoot:

[Socrates]

Geez . . . I heard you the first time.  - jk

 

 

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...

 

Unfortunately, you can't run searches on the archives on this site like you used to, but maybe I'll see if I can dig something up when I find more time.

However, I think it should be clear that having a mother and a father is the natural order of things.

As absolutely nobody becomes a parent through homosexual acts, there is really no such thing as a "gay parent," and there is no pressing reason for homosexual couples to adopt children, as plenty of "straight" married couples are available.

You can read the Church document I linked to earlier for a better understanding of the Church's position on this. 

 

 

 

"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? 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, what I'm proposing isn't really so radical and unheard of as you probably think.  No-fault divorce wasn't introduced in this country until the early 1970s.  Before that, marriage was understood as being permanent, and there had to be evidence of serious wrongdoing on the part of a spouse (which would included abuse) to obtain a legal divorce.

 

It used to be that most marriages actually were "until death do us part," permanence in marriage was aspired to, and divorces were fairly rare, and seen as tragic.  Now, people can get divorced on a whim, over half of marriages end in divorce, marriage is largely not seen as permanent, and many do not bother to ever marry to begin with, choosing instead a string of uncommitted sexual relationships.

 

I'm not claiming everything was perfect back in the good old days before no-fault divorce and accepted promiscuity - but overall, family life was in fact stronger and better for the children.  It is very well-documented that divorce has strong, often permanent, negative effects on children - usually worse than those of living in a less-than-perfect marriage (simply run a search on "effects of divorce on children").

 

I'm not just romanticizing the past here, but can speak on personal experience.  I spent much of my time growing up knowing strong Catholics where marriage was taken seriously, and there was practically no divorce.  Most of these people had happy, stable home lives, without most of the problems found in broken homes.  It can be done, if aspiring to a life-long marriage and putting children ahead of personal convenience is taken seriously.

 

By contrast, the suffering of and bad effects on people I've known who've come from broken homes is very real.

 

 

 

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? 

 

You're attacking strawmen here.

 

I never said anything about the state inspecting relationships, or criminalizing fornication.  Positively encouraging marriage (or any other positive behavior) need not entail criminalizing bad behavior.

 

 

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.

 

There's actually been lots of studies done on this.  Run a google search.  I don't think that fatherlessness is the sole cause of the problems in the ghetto, but it's definitely a large part of it - it's a vicious cycle.

 

"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?

 

Yes.  I'll have to look up the exact numbers, but very large numbers of women do not married today (a majority actually in lower, and lower-middle class households of all races).  Poll data also show that single women (of all socio-economic groups) tend to vote very liberal/big-government, while married women as a group do not.

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

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 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. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

More strawmen.

 

I'm not proposing anything radical or scary - no cops in the bedroom or other nonsense - simply that only marriage between man and woman be recognized as marriage.

 

You know, the way it always was in this country in the remote, oppressive Dark Ages before 2005 in MA, and the way it still is in the majority of states.

In such benighted backwards states, homosexuals are free to live together and do whatever the hell they want in the bedroom.  It's just not legally recognized as a "marriage."

 

All leftist hysteria to the contrary, Texas is a far cry from Saudi Arabia.

 

Being an Evil Catholic, I'd have nothing against having all marriages officiated by the Church, rather than the state, but I think such marriages should be recognized and protected by law.  There can be legitimate debate about how this is best done.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Socrates

[CatholicsAreKewl]

You reply with my 10 posts with one?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'll reply soon. too tired.  :sleep:

[CatholicsAreKewl]

More strawmen.

I'm not proposing anything radical or scary - no cops in the bedroom or other nonsense - simply that only marriage between man and woman be recognized as marriage.

We disagree here. I don't see why the state needs to recognize any marriage. Honestly, when it comes down to it, the evidence doesn't matter. It's really a moral question. Does the state have the right to acknowledge specific contracts and reject others merely because of gender? 

 

You know, the way it always was in this country in the remote, oppressive Dark Ages before 2005 in MA, and the way it still is in the majority of states.

In such benighted backwards states, homosexuals are free to live together and do whatever the hell they want in the bedroom.  It's just not legally recognized as a "marriage."

The label of marriage is somewhat irrelevant to me. I don't support the state sanctioning "gay marriage" but why should the state get involved with straight marriage either? Like I said earlier, our argument is going to soon come down to whether we believe the state intervening in our personal lives is moral or not. The Democrats and the Republicans in America are not so different nowadays. Both want the government to maintain power. They just disagree as to what they want the government to do with that power.

 

All leftist hysteria to the contrary, Texas is a far cry from Saudi Arabia.

Lol, this might be inaccurate. A true leftist might refrain from mentioning Saudi Arabia altogether (political correctness and stuff). Also, leftists like the government having power. I'm asking for less. 

Looking back, I will admit that you are right. I overstated the connection between the government acting on social issues such as gay marriage for religious reasons and Saudi Arabia's enforcement of fiqh. But the state enforcing a religious view of marriage seems oddly similar to how a religious country, such as saudi arabia, would deal with marriage. We are not a Christian country. There is no reason to have the state enforce our view of the world on others. 

 

Being an Evil Catholic, I'd have nothing against having all marriages officiated by the Church, rather than the state, but I think such marriages should be recognized and protected by law.  There can be legitimate debate about how this is best done.

Contracts. I believe we can do them through contracts. The protection of a marriage does not have to include preventing certain people from marrying. If the value of marriage, or anything for that matter, is dependent on the state's view of it, then we have a much greater issue here. 

[Socrates]

 

We disagree here. I don't see why the state needs to recognize any marriage. Honestly, when it comes down to it, the evidence doesn't matter. It's really a moral question. Does the state have the right to acknowledge specific contracts and reject others merely because of gender? 

 

The state certainly has no moral obligation to recognize every possible kind of contract as a “marriage,” which is something that we believe has a specific meaning and purpose, even if you don’t think so.

The state can refuse to recognize “marriages” on the basis of gender just as much as it can on the basis of number, relationship, or other factors.  Why not recognize “marriages” between a man and ten women, or fifty men and sixty women, or a man and his mother, or three brothers and their two sisters?

Unmarried persons (whatever their sexual "orientiation") can already make all kinds of legal contracts – there’s just no reason any and all contracts must be recognized as “marriage.”

 

While I know you disagree, the reason we believe marriage between man and woman deserves legal protection and recognition is that it is a good fundamentally essential to human society, while homosexual “unions” are not.

 

 

 

The label of marriage is somewhat irrelevant to me. I don't support the state sanctioning "gay marriage" but why should the state get involved with straight marriage either? Like I said earlier, our argument is going to soon come down to whether we believe the state intervening in our personal lives is moral or not. The Democrats and the Republicans in America are not so different nowadays. Both want the government to maintain power. They just disagree as to what they want the government to do with that power.

 

Let’s at least try to keep your argument consistent here.  If you don’t want any state recognition of marriage period, there’s no reason to complain about homosexual couples not being recognized as “married” by the state.  If legal recognition of marriage between man and woman is somehow oppression and interference in the lives of heterosexual couples, why would you wish to extend that oppression to homosexuals?

 

Also, I find the whole argument that legal recognition of marriage means oppressive state interference in our personal lives to be a bit absurd.  In our country, millions of people, “straight” and “gay,” live together and have sex without being legally married, and are not punished by the state for it.

 

 

 

 

Lol, this might be inaccurate. A true leftist might refrain from mentioning Saudi Arabia altogether (political correctness and stuff). Also, leftists like the government having power. I'm asking for less. 

Looking back, I will admit that you are right. I overstated the connection between the government acting on social issues such as gay marriage for religious reasons and Saudi Arabia's enforcement of fiqh. But the state enforcing a religious view of marriage seems oddly similar to how a religious country, such as saudi arabia, would deal with marriage. We are not a Christian country. There is no reason to have the state enforce our view of the world on others. 

 

 

Glad you admit your slippery slope “argument” is ridiculous.

Somehow our country managed to go for almost 230 years only legally recognizing marriages between man and woman without becoming some Sharia-like theocratic tyranny.

 

Whether or not America was/is a “Christian country” depends on how you define that term, but though America has no established state religion, its legal framework is heavily based in Judeao-Christian moral ideas.  As founding father John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.   It is wholly inadequate to  the government of any other.”  There is nothing wrong with laws being rooted in moral principles.

 

The idea that marriage is only between man and woman is not specifically religious, but is based in natural law morality.  It is hardly unique to Catholicism, or Christianity, but this idea was once essentially common to persons of all religions – Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever.

 

 

Contracts. I believe we can do them through contracts. The protection of a marriage does not have to include preventing certain people from marrying. If the value of marriage, or anything for that matter, is dependent on the state's view of it, then we have a much greater issue here. 

 

The value of marriage is not dependant on the state’s view of it, but we believe the law should reflect what is good and true, rather than oppose or confuse it.

Our disagreement does not concern “preventing people from marrying,” but the definition of what marriage in fact is, and I don’t think we’ll agree on that as long as we have fundamentally different worldviews.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i like reason 8 and 9.