Bush calls for gay marriage ban

[Sojourner]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1003432' date='Jun 11 2006, 10:40 PM']
Sojourner and hot stuff..................just to clarify, do you support a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage? yes or no?

also, what do you two think of what era might wrote?
[/quote]
I've been trying to come up with a scenario in which a constitutional amendment about marriage could be proposed and I would feel comfortable supporting it and I just can't.

Although I'm really disturbed by the timing of the introduction of this amendment, and deeply offended that it uses a sacrament to gain political footing, my base discomfort with the situation is that we're thinking it's OK to put the definition of marriage up for a vote. I really just can't get comfortable with giving government the right to define marriage -- even if the definition ends up totally in line with church teaching (although that scenario would be slighly more palatable).

What our government is defining isn't marriage -- it's a domestic partnership. It may look like marriage in some of the particulars -- as in, that it's between a man and a woman -- but it is not MARRIAGE. We've allowed government to coopt the idea of marriage, to put it up to public vote -- and now the word "marriage" doesn't mean what it used to. It's lost the sense of the sacred that it once had in the larger community, and we have allowed that bastardization.

Now we're expected to support this because it's better than the alternative, and honestly I just can't stomach supporting it. It's like asking whether I'd prefer to eat vomit or drink used motor oil.

[homeschoolmom]

Go with the motor oil.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1003633' date='Jun 12 2006, 07:39 AM']
Go with the motor oil.
[/quote]
Can't I just abstain altogether?

[homeschoolmom]

This reminds me of a game where you have to chose between two disgusting choices... Which would you rather eat-- a pound of cotton candy or a cup of shaving cream? A bottle cap or a bug the size of a bottle cap?

Good times.

Now, back on topic.

[chris]

I guess you could look at it as our Government's one step closer the light. They still, however have a long way to go. I will help them along by praying for peace, safety and right discernment. I have been praying over this same-sex marriage issue for quite sometime. Praise God, my prayers are beng answered.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Convert4888

[Aloysius]

the state has the moral duty to recognize things that are in line with the natural law and not to recognize things that are out of line with the natural law.

the state has the moral right to promote those things which help to build up the stability of its society with rewards.

it would be immoral for the state to recognize anything that is out of line with the natural law. it would be immoral for the state to promote anything that was out of line with the natural law.

be concerned about the timing in line with midterm elections and some republican religion-manipulation conspiracy if you'd like. but Catholic principals for how a state should run lead to the clear cut conclusion that such an ammendment would be good law.

[Franimus]

Let's go back to the foundings of this country: Religious freedom.
While it would be nice to have our own little Catholic country, the truth is that the USA is a secular nation, and has an inalterable dedication to preserving freedom of religion for everybody, among other freedoms.
As such, it is not a surprise that the US is having trouble passing the DOMA. However, you and I well know that no legitimate religion actively supports homosexuality. As such, we must fight, not only as Catholics, but also as citizens, for the passing of DOMA. Why? Correct, DOMA is not perfect. However, as somebody in this thread (i think it was in this thread) quoted a Pope (at some level; is this enough citation for you Cam?) as encouraging Catholics to support any measures, no matter how small or incomplete those measures are, which further Catholic morality/or and the natural law. Era Might had a great post earlier, where he expressed the above ideas.
Now, on to the natural law: The natural law is that which is intrinsic to all of humanity, and is not the same as Catholic teaching. However, all of Catholic teaching does correspond with the natural law, and most all of Catholic teaching has it's roots (from a secular point of view) in the natural law. (Why do I get the feeling I'm going to get bashed for this post?) I think that, as citizens of the US, and as Catholics mindful of the neccessary separation of Church and State, we should push for the governmental law to conform to the natural law, rather than conform to Church law. It is senseless to make a free Nation conform to the teachings of a single Church, no matter the Church. However, that Nation, as with all Nations, must conform to Natural Law, from which all Governments derive their authority (Natural Law, in turn, deriving its authority from God, of course).
Back to same-sex marriages: The US has its own version of marriage. From my experience, most people are very aware of the difference between sacramental Marriage (capitalized for clarity) and legal marriage. I do not think that we need to discuss how homosexuality is against the Natural Law; that seems to be another debate, and it appears that at least most of you would agree with this statement. I have already discussed in this post how we must push for the Natural Law to become the governmental law. Thus, we must push for same-sex marriages to be declared illegal.
On to why we might possibly not support the DOMA: I think the only reason we might not support the DOMA is that it is not complete. hot stuff, if I am wrong, please expain the reasonings behind your position more fully. Regarding what I have stated in this post, I do not think that civil marriage (as the DOMA defines it is what I presume) directly contradicts natural law. Anything that in some way supports the natural law cannot be said to contradict it. It supports the natural law by confirming the union as being between one man and one woman. I admit that it does go against the natural law by failing to include any sort of prolonged commitment. However, natural law, common sense (which is pretty much the same as natural law), and Catholic teaching all support the rare possibility of separation (do not read that as divorce.. there is a difference) of spouses (e.g. due to spousal abuse). Thus, while failing to acknowledge a permanant commitment, the DOMA does still support natural law by allowing separation of spouses. The DOMA is not too much of a fine-cut line, and it does not appear that the DOMA was made to be a fine-cut line. I think that the DOMA was intended to put a general stop to homosexuality.
Finally, as mentioned before by somebody else, the timing or hidden agendas of this should not in any way affect our support of this individual bill (according to natural law). However, it should affect our votes on the candidates. Opposing the DOMA because of it's timing is similar to opposing Catholicism because a Catholic guy was hired to replace you. However, by all means, you're free to be mad at your former boss, or to be mad at whomever coordinated the timing, and to take legitimate action against them.
I think that's all I have to say...
PS Cam - please be more specific and more clear when correcting citations. I don't think we realized you were correcting the manner of citing sources. Also, this is not a strictly formal debate table. If it were, you'd see rules and such posted for who can reply when, with word limits and such. Please be more leniant with those of us who are too lazy or are otherwise unable to adhere to strict standards of debate. Thank you.

[Jaime]

I'm not sure if some of the folks are aware of this but DOMA became a federal law 10 years ago.

[Franimus]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1003710' date='Jun 12 2006, 10:19 AM']
I'm not sure if some of the folks are aware of this but DOMA became a federal law 10 years ago.
[/quote]
yeah i'm not too up on my historical events.. ever notice my lack of specific citations? i just try to stick to the concepts and everythign behind it, and go off of what i do remember for sure.

[Era Might]

I guess this discussion goes back to a more fundamental issue: should the state be involved in marriage at all? I think the state does have a necessary role in the definition of marriage because marriage is bound up in temporal interests (such as taxes). Even apart from the moral considerations, the state has to decide who can claim to be married (and exercise those temporal interests), and who can't. If there is no definition of marriage, anyone can claim those temporal interests however they pleased. If you wanted to file your taxes with a fish, all you would have to do is say you married the fish, and you're claiming what is yours. But the state has to say, "Only a man and a woman can marry", because it has to make sure the temporal benefits of marriage are legitimately ordered toward marriage. Otherwise, they're useless.

The state has to serve Catholics and non-Catholics; because non-Catholic marriages can be valid and just, the state has to leave its definition of marriage generic enough so that non-Catholics can benefit from those temporal interests, while still ensuring that invalid and unjust marriages (such as between a man and a man) are not legitimized or granted the temporal interests of marriage. If you had to have the permission of a Bishop to be considered legitimately "married" by the state, then only Catholics could get married, and the Church itself does not hold others to that standard. Non-Catholics are not regarded under the restrain of Canon Law, although all men are regarded under the constraint of natural law.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

The amendment -- although not perfect -- is a step in the right direction, because it will at least safeguard the family from distortion by groups that are trying to legitimize deviant behavior.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1003710' date='Jun 12 2006, 10:19 AM']
I'm not sure if some of the folks are aware of this but DOMA became a federal law 10 years ago.
[/quote]
of course the nine dicator-legislators of the country could declare that law unconstitutional at any time.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1003914' date='Jun 12 2006, 01:22 PM']
of course the nine dicator-legislators of the country could declare that law unconstitutional at any time.
[/quote]


Are you including the majority conservative "dictators"?

Because that really doesn't seem likely

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1003625' date='Jun 12 2006, 05:08 AM']
I am not questioning the quote of the CNA. I never have. What I am questioning is the fact that Socrates passed off the quote of the CNA as his own. Why do we even bother having a quote button? And internet plagerism is a huge issue.

Notice that I didn't say anything when he first used the citation, because he cited it. However, when he made the quotation as his own and passed them off as his own quoting, then that is the move that is dishonest and that is the move that requires correction. Or is Socrates above being corrected? He is not.

I am all for cutting slack when one forgets to use the quotes as a mistake, I am sure taht somewhere along the way I have done it; however, when one says, I have quoted the Pope as saying "such and such" rather than saying, the CNA quotes the Pope as saying "such and such" then it is a matter of several issues; plagerism, copyright infringment, intellectual dishonesty and in a very real way it is lying.

Actually, it seems that [url="http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/cmosfaq.html"]The Chicago Manual of Style[/url] is probably the most complete form of citation. I think that Kate L. Turabian was ahead of her time in developing this form.
[/quote]
Look pal, I don't give a rat's rear-end how far back you and hot stuff go, you have no right to slander me by false accusations of dishonesty, plagiarism, and lying.

Here's where I first brought up the Pope Benedict XVI quote in question:
[quote][b]The Pope himself, earlier this year, called on Catholics to politically support "recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage, and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role[/b]."

Full article here: [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6368"]Catholics must be engaged in political debate, says Pope[/url][/quote]
(post #24) See for yourself: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=53273&view=findpost&p=1000854"]Original post here[/url]

[b]1) Note that the quoted section was in quotation marks.
2) Note that I posted a link to the original article directly after the quote! Anyone could check the source with a single click![/b]

I did absolutely nothing to try to make readers think I had directly interviewed the Pope nor did I take credit for writing the article itself!

My profuse apologies for giving a direct link to the original source, rather than taking the time to write out a Turabian-style footnote!

Your methods would be laughable if they were not so despicable.
You have shown yourself uncapable of actual debate, but have only made a series of ludicrous and slanderous false accusations, which have contributed nothing whatsoever to this debate.

And surely the self-proclaimed "Lord and Master of Orthodoxy" must know that slander is a mortal sin! (As is blasphemy.)

Until you repent, and I receive word of an apology for your slander, you shall remain on "ignore."
May God have mercy on your soul.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1003355' date='Jun 11 2006, 08:07 PM']
Soc

Do you or don't you agree with this statement?

Civil marriage directly contradicts natural law.
[/quote]
In itself it does not. Sacramental marriage goes beyond natural law, being a supernatural institution.

Franimus, Aloysius, and others have answered this quite well. I have little to add.