Does The Government Have The Right To Rule On Gay Marriage?

[4588686]

I do not know what that has to do with anything, but I would welcome a Catholic theocracy.   Freedom is not the ability to do what you want, but to do what you ought.   You are free to drive, but you are not free to drive recklessly.  Speed limits do not take away your freedom to drive, they keep you from abusing that freedom.  

 

You're idea that freedom is license, is not a view which a civilized society runs on. 

 

 

We've had numerous Catholic theocracies. Like all theocracies they were awful and barbaric and poor. Because that's what happens when you have a totalitarian system. The very worst of that society, those most fervent and ruthless in enforcing their delusions or those most cynical and willing to use social delusions to advance themselves at the expense of everyone else, rise to the top and stomp down on those who are creative and willing to try new, disruptive ideas. 

 

See The USSR or Iran or North Korea or Medieval Christendom 

[4588686]

Free will does not grant the right to choose error. The will exists solely to choose between goods. To choose an evil, like error, is an abuse of the will.

[Era Might]

I do not know what that has to do with anything, but I would welcome a Catholic theocracy.   Freedom is not the ability to do what you want, but to do what you ought.   You are free to drive, but you are not free to drive recklessly.  Speed limits do not take away your freedom to drive, they keep you from abusing that freedom.  

 

You're idea that freedom is license, is not a view which a civilized society runs on. 

 

Perfect example of how "error" is a dangerous idea in society. Ought we to be driving at all? What are the consequences that future generations may be dealing with, e.g., environmental, or the human consequences of a world that runs on speed (massive energy reinforces inequity, because those on the top of society inevitably are able to do more with more energy, while those on the bottom are left behind to make do with the consequences of speed, e.g., gas prices, inability to access social resources because they do not have the same mobility as the rich, etc.).

 

Speed limits are not "freedom" they're just a practical regulation of a particular technology in society. Speed is "license" for the rich to have a well-ordered use of their technology. They make the rules for their optimal benefit. If it was about "freedom" then they would have to consider reducing or eliminating how society moves (e.g., considering bicycles as the measure of movement).

 

I don't mean all this as a literal policy. It would be hard to scale back our use of cars, planes, etc., but it would be hard mainly because the well-to-do would suffer most, and they run society to make sure it favors them. "The rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under bridges." Error in society, I'd argue, is almost always "error" in large part because it inconveniences the social structure. That's where propaganda and ideology come into play, if you can cloak policy in ideas like "morality" or "family" or "civilization" or "freedom" or "truth" then it's easier to sell and maintain the social structure.

 

Propaganda is an important technique for rulers in every society, Catholic or secular, and the foundation of social error. It gives them all the license they need to achieve any end, so long as they mask it in the right "truth." Those ends could be political rivals, dynasties, beauracracies, etc. Abolishing freedom of speech does not ensure "doing what you ought," it just restricts who can abuse speech to the ruling classes. With freedom of speech, there still isn't guarantee of true freedom, it just abolishes legal barriers to who can abuse it (today that role is filled by marketers as much as politicians).

Edited December 29, 2014 by Era Might

[Basilisa Marie]

Somewhat relevant article from Canon Law Blog on the government's right to rule on marriage and the movement to take away civil marriage from clergy: 

 

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/i-guess-one-in-three-americans-dont-know-a-good-thing-when-they-see-it/

 

 

 

Now, for those who do know that the consent of the parties makes marriage, the fundamental supposition of the Radner-Seitz Pledge—namely, that the State has changed the definition of marriage (which itcan’t do and, even by its own count, has not succeeded in doing yet!) and, as a result, ministers who care about real marriage should not confer or cooperate in conferring marriage (as understood by at least some States), that supposition, I say, collapses: The State does notconfer marriage on couples, couples confer marriage on each other! All the State does, and for that matter all the Church does, (and, for that matter, all that God does between baptized persons, but that discussion is more complex and is not immediately relevant to a discussion of Church-State cooperation in the matter of marriage), is to recognize what the couple did, namely, they married. If, therefore, a given couple has entered what natural law knows as marriage (a life-long, sexually exclusive, union of one man and one woman, etc.), it is right and even necessary that the State recognize their consent as initiating a marriage irrespective of whether that marriage was entered into before government officials or—and here we get closer to the concerns of Radner-Seitz—before the officials of a religious body.

 

 

[Not A Real Name]

Perfect example of how "error" is a dangerous idea in society. Ought we to be driving at all? What are the consequences that future generations may be dealing with, e.g., environmental, or the human consequences of a world that runs on speed (massive energy reinforces inequity, because those on the top of society inevitably are able to do more with more energy, while those on the bottom are left behind to make do with the consequences of speed, e.g., gas prices, inability to access social resources because they do not have the same mobility as the rich, etc.).

 

Speed limits are not "freedom" they're just a practical regulation of a particular technology in society. Speed is "license" for the rich to have a well-ordered use of their technology. They make the rules for their optimal benefit. If it was about "freedom" then they would have to consider reducing or eliminating how society moves (e.g., considering bicycles as the measure of movement).

 

I don't mean all this as a literal policy. It would be hard to scale back our use of cars, planes, etc., but it would be hard mainly because the well-to-do would suffer most, and they run society to make sure it favors them. "The rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under bridges." Error in society, I'd argue, is almost always "error" in large part because it inconveniences the social structure. That's where propaganda and ideology come into play, if you can cloak policy in ideas like "morality" or "family" or "civilization" or "freedom" or "truth" then it's easier to sell and maintain the social structure.

 

Propaganda is an important technique for rulers in every society, Catholic or secular, and the foundation of social error. It gives them all the license they need to achieve any end, so long as they mask it in the right "truth." Those ends could be political rivals, dynasties, beauracracies, etc. Abolishing freedom of speech does not ensure "doing what you ought," it just restricts who can abuse speech to the ruling classes. With freedom of speech, there still isn't guarantee of true freedom, it just abolishes legal barriers to who can abuse it (today that role is filled by marketers as much as politicians).

 

Of course the "speed limit" was an example of how laws do not negate freedom. True laws negate error.  There are laws in mathematics.  Do these laws mean we are not free do practice mathematics?  No. We are free to practice mathematics and the laws are there so that we practice mathematics correctly.  

[4588686]

Of course the "speed limit" was an example of how laws do not negate freedom. True laws negate error.  There are laws in mathematics.  Do these laws mean we are not free do practice mathematics?  No. We are free to practice mathematics and the laws are there so that we practice mathematics correctly.  

 

This is a wonderful post in that you provide an excellent example of why your argument is so bad. 

 

The rules that mathematicians use for exploring various formal systems are not imposed from outside. Mathematicians experiment with different approaches and go with what works. Until it no longer does. 

 

At the beginning of the 20th century the mathematical establishment insisted that one of the most pressing problems in all of mathematics, and a project that all young mathematicians must dedicate themselves to proving, was the consistency of arithmetic. Of course, a few decades later, the eccentric (in fact, insane) Kurt Godel proved that no such proof was possible and, indeed, that the mainstream interpretation of mathematics was substantially and conceptually wrong. 

 

Totalitarian systems don't allow that kind of intellectual revolution. Please note that theocratic/totalitarian systems never outperform liberal democracies in intellectual research. 

[4588686]

Also, if you don't see the difference between saying that 'hey, accidents are a bad thing, placing speed limits on roads seems to reduce accidents and keep the roads open and moving, let's try that for a bit' and saying 'We alone can correctly interpret what God wants and God has declared that it is contrary to natural law to ever drive your car faster than 35mph, roma locuta est, causa finita est' then you really can't be helped. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Also, if you don't see the difference between saying that 'hey, accidents are a bad thing, placing speed limits on roads seems to reduce accidents and keep the roads open and moving, let's try that for a bit' and saying 'We alone can correctly interpret what God wants and God has declared that it is contrary to natural law to ever drive your car faster than 35mph, roma locuta est, causa finita est' then you really can't be helped. 

 

Yeah, but that assumes that interpreting divine will is inherently subjective, while accidents are objectively bad. That's logically unsound. 

 

If you assume that it's possible for divine will to be interpreted objectively, and that you're doing it correctly (like deciding car accidents are bad), you could easily say "hey, going to hell is a bad thing, so limiting certain behaviors seems to reduce people committing sins and helps people stay holy, so let's try that for a bit." 

 

A better comparison would be between whether or not speed limits actually reduce speeding, and thus accidents, and whether or not making sinful activity illegal actually stops people from sinning, and thus going to hell.  The answer to the first part being yes, though people still speed. The answer to the second? I'm not so sure. We can't know for sure if someone actually does go to hell, and people will keep sinning regardless of the rule. But people have a vested interest in not getting into a car accident, because every believes that car accidents are a reality and something they could personally experience.  You can't say the same about hell, even if we do decide it's a reality. People today don't believe in hell like they believe in car accidents, so you run into problems like with theocratic totalitarian states. 

 

So now I'm not sure if I'm arguing with you or against you. 

Edited December 29, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[An Historian]

[quote name="Hasan" post="2709977" timestamp="1419876249"]This is all laughable.[\quote]

Meh. You are an object of pity rather than ridicule for me.

[Quote]There is no God.[\quote]

I do not know whether your arrogance or stupidity frightens me more.

There is a God. Base human reason can deduce this reality. He has revealed himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. He created you and redeemed you. He loves you. Stop pretenending Hasan. You cannot hide your misery from Him. Cast off your pride, and humble yourself before Him.

Your sin does not need to continue to drag you to the earth. There is freedom and liberation in Christ.

[Quote]Your beliefs are just a silly superstition.[\quote]

My beliefs are rational and logical. They are the absolute and objective truths.

[Quote]And your totalitarian goals, while morally appalling, would be frightening they weren't so irrelevant.[/quote]

lol. You're meant to be an atheist my friend. You're doing it wrong.

[Winchester]

The federal government was never given permission to have so much as an opinion on marriage. That power would then be retained by the states or the people. Legally speaking. There is not a single federal law or regulation regarding marriage that has any validity whatsoever.

[Anomaly]

There was no such thing, really. But we should definitely go back to the old days of Catholic Europe.

Obviously, you aren't a very learned historian, LOL

At acknowledge the intellectual and moral development of more recent Catholicism. Thoughtless or fearful obedience to the Master does get everyone to line up better. Edited December 30, 2014 by Anomaly

[xSilverPhinx]

I think it's progress. Marriage between two consenting adults, whether the same sex or not, should be allowed. 

[Era Might]

I think it's progress. Marriage between two consenting adults, whether the same sex or not, should be allowed. 

 

If that's the case, I don't see any reason to exclude polygamy.

[xSilverPhinx]

If that's the case, I don't see any reason to exclude polygamy.

 

Me neither, to be honest. 

[dUSt]

Me neither, to be honest. 

 

And furthermore, I should be able to marry my brother or sister as well. Why does a marriage have to be sexual? If me and my brother are roomates, why can't we enjoy the same tax benefits as a married couple?