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

[CatholicsAreKewl]

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.”

 

The meaning of "marriage" is not set in stone. And I'm fine with the state accepting a contract between a man and his sister, his mom, 10,000 women, etc. Why does the state need to have anything to do with marriage? Why is the term "marriage" so sacred? It's just a word. The meaning of "marriage" is different for different people and depends on context, like any other word. 

 

 

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.

 

Nutrition is also fundamentally essential for human society. Should we start banning McDonald's? We get annoyed with Liberals when they try to force their ideals on society. How is this different? 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

It's humiliating that the state won't allow my kids to receive my inheritance unless I get a state endorsed slip saying my marriage is valid. It's more humiliating if they further abuse this power and tell me I can't have a contract with Ned because... just because.

 

 

 

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.

Marriage is a private matter. The government is trying to force us to act a certain way by endorsing a specific brand of marriage. People aren't stupid. They can get along just fine without the government spoon feeding morality to them. 

 

 

 

 

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.

Ah, I was saying that basing laws on religion alone is similar to a Sharia based government. I still believe this. I was just agreeing that my example was a poor one.

 

 

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 divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." John Adams

 

Our founding fathers were moral people but many of them weren't Christian. They were trying to get away from a theocracy. There's nothing wrong with basing our laws on religious beliefs, but from which religions? 

 

 

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.

This is a Catholic argument. Even if it is immoral, that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Two people getting married does not pose a threat to me.  

 

 

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.

 

Going to Mass on sunday is moral. Should there be a law enforcing mass attendance? Some morals should not be enforced by the state. I think we just differ as to which ones these are. 

Edited May 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Just a clarification, it seems that there is debate as to whether John Adams was a Christian or not. Regardless, the idea that all the founding fathers had a Christian state in mind is a myth. 

[centurion]

Regardless, the idea that all the founding fathers had a Christian state in mind is a myth. 

 

The Founders were attempting to establish an autonomous nation independent from the British monarchy and the state-controlled Anglican Church as well as the establishment of a political system that tolerated other beliefs within the context of an assumed Judeo-Christian (and Protestant) structure.  The word "toleration" is key here as the word no longer carries it's original definition in our modern lexicon, and in reality there was rarely any toleration at all once you left the protection of the Protestant majority.

 

If the Founders didn't specifically have some analog of a Christian state in mind when they wrote the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution it was only largely because they never could have imagined a day when atheism, agnosticism, and post-modernism (which didn't even exist at the time) would rule the day or when rhetorical political correctness would trump reason and natural law.  Ultimately, most of the Founders at least espoused religious belief in God, and while there is some debate about the authenticity of some of the Founders and their faith this remains largely academic.  Men like Jefferson and Franklin were deists, but they were also a minority within a larger majority of white Protestant men.

[4588686]

The Founders were attempting to establish an autonomous nation independent from the British monarchy and the state-controlled Anglican Church as well as the establishment of a political system that tolerated other beliefs within the context of an assumed Judeo-Christian (and Protestant) structure.  The word "toleration" is key here as the word no longer carries it's original definition in our modern lexicon, and in reality there was rarely any toleration at all once you left the protection of the Protestant majority.

 

If the Founders didn't specifically have some analog of a Christian state in mind when they wrote the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution it was only largely because they never could have imagined a day when atheism, agnosticism, and post-modernism (which didn't even exist at the time) would rule the day or when rhetorical political correctness would trump reason and natural law.  Ultimately, most of the Founders at least espoused religious belief in God, and while there is some debate about the authenticity of some of the Founders and their faith this remains largely academic.  Men like Jefferson and Franklin were deists, but they were also a minority within a larger majority of white Protestant men.

 

 

"The Founders couldn't have imagined a non-Christian context.  Except for the ones who weren't Christians.  But they don't count lol.  Although it's not clear why the Founders couldn't have imagined America being a non-Christian nation considering so many were well acquainted with non-Christian cultures and thinkers"

 

Natural law isn't reason.  It's unsubstantiated bullpoo.  Pure and simple.  As make believe as the god you pray to.  

Edited May 31, 2013 by Hasan

[4588686]

 

The idea that marriage is only between man and woman is not specifically religious, but is based in natural law morality. 

 

 

Natural law morality is some made up horsepoo whose only intellectual foundation is inferred from religious presumptions.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I think it is a bit early in the day to be drunk. :|

[4588686]

I think it is a bit early in the day to be drunk. :|

 

 

False

[Chestertonian]

 As make believe as the god you pray to.  

 

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[4588686]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

 

 

Right.  You're trying to make Chesterton's claim.  "If there were no God then there would be no atheists."  It's a dumb claim.  

[Chestertonian]

Right.  You're trying to make Chesterton's claim.  "If there were no God then there would be no atheists."  It's a dumb claim.  

 

Try again.

 

I like your avatar, btw.

[4588686]

Try again.

 

I like your avatar, btw.

 

Then what was your point?

[KnightofChrist]

I'm so ronery So ronery So ronery and sadry arone... somebody please pay attention to me.

Sorry dude.

[4588686]

Sorry dude.

 

 

Thank you.  That was very clever.  

[CatholicsAreKewl]

lol this debate is quickly turning into a rap battle.

[4588686]

lol this debate is quickly turning into a rap battle.