Redefining Marriage

[hyperdulia again]

i see no compellinng reason for a secular state to outlaw polygamy. :

[littleflower+JMJ]

so the gov't' can draw the line of family and species, but it cant draw the line of gender?

it's not that homosexual marriage would lead to that. it's just that the line is being pushed further and further back. our society is all about fighting against oppression of lifestyles, and if this becomes the norm they'll need somethin new to fight for. the further and further the line goes, the more and more they start seeing a world-view where there is no line whatsoever. :ph34r:

i agree :shame:

[cmotherofpirl]

I think it's a sign of a perverse society and a perverse mind that a loving and committed relationship (sexual and not) between two persons of the same gender equals sex between immediate family members and sex between beings belonging to different species.

marriage is a sacrament, something belonging to the church. the state can recognize or not recognize whatever it wants to and it doesn't mean anything. it recognizes the second through 100th marriages of a divorced person. the church doesn't. it says that two people who have no intention of being open to life or being faithful to one another can contract a valid marriage. the church doesn't. it says that a man physically incapable of getting an erection can contract a valid marriage. the church doesn't. the state has no basis for telling citizens that they cannot marry. it has abdicated any moral authority it ever had.

there are compelling non-religious reasons for the incest ban and for the ban on cross-species intercourse.

Yes there is.

Maybe you ought to explain the one about animals to the swedes.

[hyperdulia again]

is zoophilia legal in sweden?

[cmotherofpirl]

read this and click on the link "according to news reports"

http://www.joshclaybourn.com/blog/archives/001739.html

this is from Mark Sheas blog dated Friday Jan 30th.

Edited February 11, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Dave]

I shouldn't have taken a look at that link while I was eating!

[hyperdulia again]

well that's stupid. but the logic still escapes me.

[God Conquers]

That's disturbing

[Hananiah]

the state has no basis for telling citizens that they cannot marry. it has abdicated any moral authority it ever had.

The Catholic Church has traditionally taught that it is the duty of the state to uphold Christian morality.

[hyperdulia again]

but the state doesn't uphold "christian morality" and i think if the state upholds "christian morality" in this case i think it will be for the most un-christian motives possible.

[Hananiah]

Be that as it may it is our duty as Catholics to make sure the state holds up as much of the Christian moral law as possible.

[hyperdulia again]

please don't presume to inform me of my duties. i see anothher holocaust coming here and people being too "good" to be christian.

[Hananiah]

I seriously doubt that there is going to be a mass persecution and extermination of homosexuals in America in the near future.

[hyperdulia again]

a while ago i didn't foresee patriot acts, undeclared wars, military tribunals for civilians, etc.

[Laudate_Dominum]

It's true that the Church's moral Theology it precisely that, Theology. Which means it is grounded upon Divine Revelation which does not apply to the secular state (seperation of Church and state, etc.). But our country's laws are grounded upon the natural law which is known through reason alone. The problem is a philosophical one. The battle is largely philosophical and the opponents of "Christian values" want people to believe that things like monogamy and marriage are religious beliefs and not something discernable in the natural law through reason alone that can rightly be imposed upon the public.

Without a foundational philosophical ethics there can be no meaningful ground for our laws. They would become something like an arbitrary expression of the majority's opinion, or the opinion of those who assert the most power.

This seems to largely describe the state of things. The only asbolute vaue is tolerance (well, almost, you're commended for being intolerant towards "traditional" values).

Many people on both sides try to appeal to tradition saying that this country was founded upon certain values that must not be compromised (for example fundamental human equality) but disagree on what these uncompromisable values are. Some would say God is included (one nation under God, etc) while others say that God is contrary to these values (you can't impose God or God-based principles on the masses because of freedom of belief). So it's quite a big mess.

Unfortunately the way of relativism and utilitarianism is the road to ruin. But this is the road that many insist upon taking. In ancient Greece there was time when the Greek culture was in decline and mixed with various other cultures and influences. The result was, on the one hand a kind of despair and displacement, on the other hand the emergence of natural law as a basis of philosophical ethics and civil law. What eventually follows from this tradition is the later stoics and the Roman law which is in many ways the foundation of our legal structures.

I think a big part of the problem is cosmological and metaphysical. Part of the quasi-philosophical grounding for the relativism and utilitarianism that threatens "christian values" is the assumption that we evolved from apes and that the world is basically arbitrary and meaningless, there is no discernable value hierarchy or teleological structure. Absolute values cannot be asserted because there is no absolute. We are just orphaned monkeys in a fundamentally meaningless world who can decide what reality is and what meaning is, these aren't things that are imposed upon us from the outside. I read something from the supreme court in which they said that we all have the right to decide what reality is for ourselves. Given that kind of outlook one could decide that it's perfectly ok to rape small children or little old ladies since they are just beasts who die and disappear anyway. The law could not say anything objectively speaking because they would be imposing an idea of reality and value on that person which is extrinsic to his freedom to decide for himself. Abortion and euthanasia are kind of implying this if you think about it.

In other words this kind of thinking threatens the basic foundations of law, morality, and civilization. I don't honestly think there is a feasible alternative to natural law. Man has an inviolable dignity, the universe has an intelligible order, there are absolute values. From there it is possible to make meaningful laws, from there you have a framework and objective point of reference from which to define laws. The alternative is to admit that our laws are ultimately arbitrary and simply an expression of the will to power.

What is someone decided to believe that their was nothing outside their own consciousness and that everything they experience is a figment of their imagination? The arguments against solipsism are quite weak compared to arguments for the existence of God. By this person's belief they could do anything lawfully. How can the law assert some foreign ideology upon this person? They can't prove to this person logically that these principles are true, they simply violate the person's worldview and force values and ideas upon him. That's an extreme example but it's obvious that the law presupposes limits in terms of what people can do. The common good, personal dignity, religious freedom, right to life, etc. are principles that should be "forced" upon people.