Should Homosexual Marriage Be Banned?

[Jaime]

talk about being eloquent

* high fives Abby*

[Sojourner]

Why thank you!

[Ziggamafu]

i think it's just a goofy matter of words. i would say that i think "civil unions" should be legal for gays, but then i'm just playing games. it doesn't really matter, anyway. the "marriage" (as far as we're concerned, as a Sacrament of Catholicism,) doesn't exist between gays so it doesn't matter. it all boils down to the issue of benefits packages, not a ceremony, since many other religions / denominations would be willing to offer a wedding.

[jasJis]

Soj,
You act as if Government's authority is completely seperate from us or from God. It's not. That's why we have the right and RESPONSIBILITY to work to make Government reflect Christian values.

Please re-read my prior post. No need to get smartalecky, , I have heard of the legislative branch. But the Legislative branch doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's why the Constitionality of laws are considered. That is also why Precedent is considered. The Body of Law is one of the great things England gave us. Yes, it isn't static, but history isn't forgotten. It serves as a stable foundation to avoid principles of law changing constantly with the whims of a 'consensus'.

Back to the topic. We define Government, so we define what the Government defines. We live in a semi-democracy and influence and control the Governemtn. Saying it isn't the Government's job is abdicating our responsibility to participate in our Society. Not a good thing.

Edit to add this from the Catechism"
[quote][b]1897[/b] "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

[u]By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws [/u]and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

[b]1898 [/b] Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

[b]1899 [/b] [u]The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment[/u]."[/quote]As you can see in 1897 and 1898, human society needs legitimate to preserve its institutions (MARRIAGE). Human society needs an authority to govern it. Government isn't seperate from God, but is subject to God and we subject ourselves to the authority in government becasue we subject ourselves to God.

Edited October 24, 2005 by jasJis

[Sojourner]

Jas -
I promise I'm working on a reply ... I'm just super-busy today and have a date tonight so likely won't be done until tomorrow.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 24 2005, 03:40 PM']Jas -
I promise I'm working on a reply ... I'm just super-busy today and have a date tonight so likely won't be done until tomorrow.
[right][snapback]769341[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]You could make it easy on yourself and [i]partially[/i] agree with me.

[Didacus]

OUCH!

Stay off a thread for a few hours and this is what happens!!!

it could take me weeks to catch up now...

*pout*

You kids are just too fast for me... how fast do you typoe anyways.. like 30 words per minute or something.... typing this out took me 30 minutes!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 24 2005, 03:59 PM']You could make it easy on yourself and [i]partially[/i] agree with me.   
[right][snapback]769359[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ha ha! That's a good one!


:

And Didacus, I type somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 wpm. But don't feel bad. I type for a living.

[DancesforLove]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 23 2005, 10:25 PM']If you don't want to debate, don't post in the debate table. 
I'm not in the mood for ad hominems.  Good night.
[right][snapback]768715[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
My only problem Socrates, is the way you speak and treat people who do not agree with you. Which is why I did not feel like arguing with you, which I know would have happened.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 23 2005, 11:41 PM']The state does also create them.  Common law marriages are an act of the state.  Marriages by a judge are an act of the state.  Hence the line of said judge "By the power invested in me by the state of ..."

This is why I argue that the government should stay out of the marriage business. 
The thing that keeps on getting in my way is stuff like the first ammendment
Is the ability for a homosexual couple to have a civil union a matter of their religious beliefs?  No but my objection is from my religious beliefs.  Therefore my objection is of personal opinion and not constitutional
[right][snapback]768823[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are so many flaws here I hardly know where to begin.

First, as I've said, marriage is a natural institution, not dependent on the Catholic Faith. (Of course, all Catholics are obligated to be married in a Catholic sacramental marriage, but this is another issue.) The man and wife make the marriage. The state gives official legal recognition to this.

And claiming that it is "unconstitutional" to oppose "gay marriages" is just absurd. This claim buys into the worst of radical secularist mis-interpretation of constitutional law.

The constitution nowhere says that one's religious beliefs can in no way influence the way one votes. This is a load of liberal horsedung.

[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]
The religious clause in the first ammendment simply meant that the Federal Government could not legally institute a State Religion, like the Church of England. People would be free to go to the church of their choice rather than be forced to be a member of a National Church. It was never interpreted to mean that no laws (and especially state laws) could be influenced in any way by "religious values" until radical secularist judicial activists began misinterpreting it this way in the mid-late 20th century!
That was most certainly not the intent of the American founders (whom even the most deistic or agnostic thereof said that religion was necessary to uphold a free and virtuous republic)!

And certainly, througout this time, the very idea of such things as "gay marriages" was unheard of!

Secondly, if you go to beginning of this thread, you will note that the legal decision in question concerned the laws of the State of Texas.

The Federal Government certainly has no right to impinge on the laws of the State of Texas, nor any other State, concerning marriage, as defined in the Tenth amendment of the Constitution.
[quote]The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/quote]
That's right. The decision to make laws concerning marriage in the state of Texas belongs to the state of Texas and the people therein! It cannot be impeded by the Federal Government, nor does the 1st Amendment prohibit it in any way!

In the early years of our Republic, most states even had their own official state churches, and the states for many years had laws against such things as fornication and sodomy. None of the constitution's framers nor the courts declared such things contrary to the constitution.

And if the people of Texas or any other state are called to vote on such issues, it is not only permissable, but the Christian duty of Catholics to vote according to their Faith, rather than permit the godless agenda of the homosexual left to win out!

Jaimie, you need to turn off Katie Couric, stop listening to this liberal nonsensical twisting of constitutional law, and study some solid constitutional law and history.

After that, start standing up for Catholic beliefs, rather than bowing to the godless nonsense of the radical secularist Left!

Edited October 25, 2005 by Socrates

[Jaime]

How many times do I have to say that I am not advocating for gay marriage?

Seriously, how many times? Just let me know!

I know you've read my posts Socrates. I don't know why you intend to misinterpret them.

Speaking of flaws

[quote]First, as I've said, marriage is a natural institution, not dependent on the Catholic Faith.[/quote]

And I would respond with Church dogma

[quote] Marriage was not instituted by Man, but by God. (Sent. certa.) D 2225
Marriage is a true and proper Sacrament instituted by God. (De fide.)
[/quote]

Like other religious practices that predate Christ. The sacrament of marriage wrought an external lawful purity prior to Christ coming to earth.

The state and federal government has no place whatsoever in marriage. Honestly Socrates I don't know why you aren't arguing this point yourself.

I have no problems with Texans voting for the ammendment save one. The state and federal government has no place in Marriage.

[jasJis]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 24 2005, 10:52 PM']The state and federal government has no place whatsoever in marriage.  Honestly Socrates I don't know why you aren't arguing this point yourself.[right][snapback]769674[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]This is the premise that is in error. Check out my response to Soj, where I quoted the Catechism. If we need an organization to functionally apply God given Authority, (government) then how can you justify Government staying out of it?

[Jaime]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 25 2005, 07:35 AM']This is the premise that is in error.  Check out my response to Soj, where I quoted the Catechism.  If we need an organization to functionally apply God given Authority, (government) then how can you justify Government staying out of it?
[right][snapback]769794[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes the government has a role in moral issues. But what does the Catechism say about sacraments?

[quote]1115 Jesus' words and actions during his hidden life and public ministry were already salvific, for they anticipated the power of his Paschal mystery. They announced and prepared what he was going to give the Church when all was accomplished. The mysteries of Christ's life are the foundations of what he would henceforth dispense in the sacraments, through the ministers of his Church, for "what was visible in our Savior has passed over into his mysteries."32[/quote]

Through the ministers of hi Church. That's what I'm saying. Does government have a responsibility to create laws over society? Who would argue against that? But government does not have a role in dispensing sacraments.

I don't see a flaw in my logic at all.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 24 2005, 10:57 AM']Soj,
You act as if Government's authority is completely seperate from us or from God.  It's not.  That's why we have the right and RESPONSIBILITY to work to make Government reflect Christian values.

Please re-read my prior post.  No need to get smartalecky,  , I have heard of the legislative branch.  But the Legislative branch doesn't exist in a vacuum.  That's why the Constitionality of laws are considered.  That is also why Precedent is considered.  The Body of Law is one of the great things England gave us.  Yes, it isn't static, but history isn't forgotten.  It serves as a stable foundation to avoid principles of law changing constantly with the whims of a 'consensus'.

Back to the topic.  We define Government, so we define what the Government defines.  We live in a semi-democracy and influence and control the Governemtn.  Saying it isn't the Government's job is abdicating our responsibility to participate in our Society.  Not a good thing.

Edit to add this from the Catechism"
As you can see in 1897 and 1898, human society needs legitimate to preserve its institutions (MARRIAGE).  Human society needs an authority to govern it.  Government isn't seperate from God, but is subject to God and we subject ourselves to the authority in government becasue we subject ourselves to God. 
[right][snapback]769069[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
OK, Jas, here goes. I thought about posting a reply last night, but I spiked my cocoa and didn't trust my reasoning skills.

I don't see government as being completely separate from us or from God. However, I do see it as having a role and authority separate and distinct from the church.

When I'm looking for someone to pick up my trash, pave my streets, and arrest and judge criminals, I look to my government. When I'm looking for someone to administer God's grace to me through the sacrament of marriage, I look to the church. While I believe church can and should have a galvanizing and preserving effect on society as a whole, I don't believe this extends to allowing government the opportunity to redefine sacraments instituted by God. Government should get out of the business of granting marriage licenses altogether. It should have no say in whether or not I am married -- that's something properly belonging in the realm of the sacred.

Saying government doesn't have the power to define marriage isn't abdicating my responsibility to participate in government. It's recognizing the distinction between the God-given authorities of church and state.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 25 2005, 09:15 AM']OK, Jas, here goes. I thought about posting a reply last night, but I spiked my cocoa and didn't trust my reasoning skills.

I don't see government as being completely separate from us or from God. However, I do see it as having a role and authority separate and distinct from the church.

When I'm looking for someone to pick up my trash, pave my streets, and arrest and judge criminals, I look to my government. When I'm looking for someone to administer God's grace to me through the sacrament of marriage, I look to the church. While I believe church can and should have a galvanizing and preserving effect on society as a whole, I don't believe this extends to allowing government the opportunity to redefine sacraments instituted by God. Government should get out of the business of granting marriage licenses altogether. It should have no say in whether or not I am married -- that's something properly belonging in the realm of the sacred.

Saying government doesn't have the power to define marriage isn't abdicating my responsibility to participate in government. It's recognizing the distinction between the God-given authorities of church and state.
[right][snapback]769838[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree and so does the Church:

Once the State thinks it has the right to decide what is true and what is false, it thinks it can become something like a god. This leads to tyranny. Ironically, these tyrannical states usually advocate personal autonomy, thereby equating freedom from limitations as the greatest freedom. True freedom however is not having an infinate amount of choices, but being able to what is best for both self and and others (in faith we would also add for the glory of God).

[quote name='"Veritatis Splendor 41"']Man's genuine moral autonomy in no way means the rejection but rather the acceptance of the moral law, of God's command: "The Lord God gave this command to the man..." (Gen 2:16). Human freedom and God's law meet and are called to intersect, in the sense of man's free obedience to God and of God's completely gratuitous benevolence towards man. Hence obedience to God is not, as some would believe, a heteronomy, as if the moral life were subject to the will of something all-powerful, absolute, ex- traneous to man and intolerant of his freedom. If in fact a heteronomy of morality were to mean a denial of man's self-determination or the imposition of norms unrelated to his good, this would be in contradiction to the Revelation of the Covenant and of the redemptive Incarnation. Such a heteronomy would be nothing but a form of alienation, contrary to divine wisdom and to the dignity of the human person.

Others speak, and rightly so, of theonomy, or participated theonomy, since man's free obedience to God's law effectively implies that human reason and human will participate in God's wisdom and providence. By forbidding man to "eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", God makes it clear that man does not originally possess such "knowledge" as something properly his own, but only participates in it by the light of natural reason and of Divine Revelation, which manifest to him the requirements and the promptings of eternal wisdom. Law must therefore be considered an expression of divine wisdom: by submitting to the law, freedom submits to the truth of creation. Consequently one must acknowledge in the freedom of the human person the image and the nearness of God, who is present in all (cf. Eph 4:6). But one must likewise acknowledge the majesty of the God of the universe and revere the holiness of the law of God, who is infinitely transcendent: Deus semper maior. "[/quote]

Edit to fix quote

Edited October 25, 2005 by Theoketos