More Rants

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337642565' post='2433376']
You apparently only want government to have a say in marriage if it is by federal courts "legislating from the bench" to enforce legal "gay marriage" on the states.[/quote]
Yeah, because I said that, and because I'm the one arguing for an expansion of government power, right?
I'll say it again: I don't want the government to have any say in marriage. Straight, gay, Catholic, protestant, Jewish, vegan, or otherwise. Marriage - or unions, or commitment ceremonies, or whatever synonym you'd like to use for it - should be a religious thing. The state should be involved in how the two individuals' lives as minimally as possible for the operation of the state, e.g. for purposes of things like income tax (which, too, ought to be overhauled, but that's another argument entirely).

[quote]
And have you even read the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH's CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url], written by our current Holy Father as Prefect of the CDF?

He agrees with me that fully that the state has a [b]duty[/b] to [b]"promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good"[/b] and that[b] "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.[/b][/quote]

I have. I agree that we, as Catholics, should not approve of homosexual behavior. I disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion on the state's role, and unless I am very, very mistaken, the opinion of a prefect has never been binding on all Catholics.

[quote]
So do you "rep the Pope" regarding marriage, or is Benedict XVI merely another right-wing Republican wackjob, whose teachings on marriage and such can safely be tossed aside by faithful Catholics?
[/quote]
Do you know how stupid you sound when you say bratty little things like that? I'll presume not, because otherwise you wouldn't say them.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337642585' post='2433377']
I'm going to go backwards, but he did talk to the bishops recently about gay marriage:
[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/pope-benedict-immigration-reform_n_1526954.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_1526954.html[/url]
[/quote]
That's great. Again, I am not a proponent of gay "marriage". I have not argued for that once in this whole debate. Two homosexual individuals could not, of course, ever be married.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337642406' post='2433373']
We must be arguing past each other because I didn't say anything about this. I'm not talking about gays getting children, by any means that they might do so. I'm just asking how two people of the same sex enjoying things like shared insurance and power of attorney is detrimental to society.
Also, please explain in detail how this will lead to a degradation of religious freedom?[/quote]I made a comment above about how gay marriage is (among other things) a matter of childrens' rights. You said it's a rather weak argument and gave examples of children who live with their aunts, single mothers, etc. Gay couples who have a state-recognized marriage will have the opportunity to adopt, which is an argument against allowing the practice.

As for religious freedom, as gay marriage is permitted, the Church will lose both the ability to speak out against the practice (in word and deed-for instance in Maryland and DC Catholic Charities cannot provide adoptions since they refuse to provide them for gay couples) and the ability to refuse to perform gay marriages (though this is much further down the road. Again, these don't have to be convincing arguments. If gay marriage is proven to be wrong in any way by reason alone, then government in general has the right to prevent it from taking place based entirely on the principle of natural law. This is all to say that Socrates and I are very far from wanting a Catholic Church-state, though from a distance it might appear that way at first.

To say this point succinctly: our ideas of a good state correspond with our ideas of the Church state, but they can also be defended entirely from reason's point of view as well.

[quote]It seems as though you're making me out to want to rewrite the definition of marriage. I do not. I want the opposite. I want the Catholic definition of marriage - the real definition, if you will - to become untouched by the government. I know the purposes of marriage, and am not arguing with them at all. I just don't understand why we need to the government to agree with those purposes and enforce them upon people.[/quote]Well part of my point revolves around natural marriage. I don't think you're trying to redefine marriage, but essentially the state is taking upon itself the capacity of redefining marriage. As Socrates said above (though I'm saying something a little different), the state itself is in fact taking on a new role that it didn't have before and should never have: the ability to legislate what is manifestly wrong as determined by natural law.

I had to bring in the point of natural marriage and its elements because you said:
[quote]Some aspects of Catholic morality should be imposed, but because they are natural law (i.e., the prohibition of murder).
Those choices which have no deleterious effects on others (including who one chooses to share his health insurance with) ought to be left up to individuals. Whether or not those choices will lead to an individual's salvation is beside the point, because the government's job is not to get us to heaven. That is the Church's job.[/quote]

In fact, natural marriage is a part of natural law and so it has the right to be imposed based on your definition.

Also, I argue (and the Church does too) that gay marriage has a detrimental effect on society. These were the two conditions you posed for what laws can be legislated and why and I have done what I can to address how both of these are reasons to defend my position.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643271' post='2433384']
That's great. Again, I am not a proponent of gay "marriage". I have not argued for that once in this whole debate. Two homosexual individuals could not, of course, ever be married.
[/quote]I'll just add this in to make sure I'm clear. I don't think you're redefining marriage, but (to ask my question more clearly): what do you think gives the government such a right and why should the government not defend the traditional understanding of marriage?

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337642406' post='2433373']
I'm only going to respond to a bit of this one since it was rubbish, but:

The Holy Father did not say anything about state recognition of marriage. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, did, as head of the CDF, and certainly I don't need to explain to you how and why the opinion of the head of the CDF and the opinion of the Pontiff are different things.
[/quote]
If you won't respond to what I've written because you regard it as "rubbish," then I'm afraid your drivel must be likewise disregarded, as it is a steaming, filthy pile of raw sewage.

Regarding the office of the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is the highest office in the Church next to the Papacy itself regarding doctrinal matters, and this document was published under the full knowledge and approval of HIs Holiness John Paul II.

And there is certainly no evidence that Benedict XVI has switched his views on this matter since assuming the office of the Papacy, but in fact has continued to speak out firmly against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions."

The document clearly shows that Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking on behalf of the Church and Her teachings, rather than simply spouting his personal opinions on the matter. Also, how can the state "promote and defend marriage," if it does not even recognize marriage, or equates it with homosexual and other "unions" having nothing to do with marriage.

Certainly, the official writings of the Prefect of the CDF carry far more weight and authority than the opinions of the likes of "USAirwaysIHS" on an internet message board.

But, oh, well, in the "Newchurch" I suppose, official Church teaching from the Vatican doesn't account for much. "Primacy of Conscience" and all that jazz . . .

[qfnol31]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337642685' post='2433378']
*Sniffles* I'm sorry, I'm just so proud of myself. I'm in a debate with people that actually agree with me! I never thought I would see it...

Sorry, go ahead.
[/quote]I'll have you know, even though you haven't referenced me, I'm also a "raving neo-con" like Socrates. He and I have almost always agreed on any debate we've encountered about society.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337643407' post='2433386']
I made a comment above about how gay marriage is (among other things) a matter of childrens' rights. You said it's a rather weak argument and gave examples of children who live with their aunts, single mothers, etc. Gay couples who have a state-recognized marriage will have the opportunity to adopt, which is an argument against allowing the practice.[/quote]
As I've said, that's another matter. I'm not talking about gay adoption. I'm talking about two people entering into a contract. Nothing about children at all.

As for the rest, it still seems to me like you're not getting what I'm trying to say. I'm in favor of a ground-up reworking of the system. If everything else remained completely the same with the exception that gays were allowed to "marry" tomorrow, then yes, I would be opposed. This is not what I'm arguing for.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337643504' post='2433389']
If you won't respond to what I've written because you regard it as "rubbish," then I'm afraid your drivel must be likewise disregarded, as it is a steaming, filthy pile of raw sewage.

Regarding the office of the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is the highest office in the Church next to the Papacy itself regarding doctrinal matters, and this document was published under the full knowledge and approval of HIs Holiness John Paul II.

And there is certainly no evidence that Benedict XVI has switched his views on this matter since assuming the office of the Papacy, but in fact has continued to speak out firmly against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions."

The document clearly shows that Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking on behalf of the Church and Her teachings, rather than simply spouting his personal opinions on the matter. Also, how can the state "promote and defend marriage," if it does not even recognize marriage, or equates it with homosexual and other "unions" having nothing to do with marriage.

Certainly, the official writings of the Prefect of the CDF carry far more weight and authority than the opinions of the likes of "USAirwaysIHS" on an internet message board.

But, oh, well, in the "Newchurch" I suppose, official Church teaching from the Vatican doesn't account for much. "Primacy of Conscience" and all that jazz . . .
[/quote]
You are a silly man.

[4588686]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1337636464' post='2433334']
It's touching to see that Winnie is my successor to the pro-anarchism debate......even though I'm no longer an anarchist.
[/quote]

Woah. You've been gone for a while. What are you now?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643757' post='2433391']
As I've said, that's another matter. I'm not talking about gay adoption. I'm talking about two people entering into a contract. Nothing about children at all.

As for the rest, it still seems to me like you're not getting what I'm trying to say. I'm in favor of a ground-up reworking of the system. If everything else remained completely the same with the exception that gays were allowed to "marry" tomorrow, then yes, I would be opposed. This is not what I'm arguing for.
[/quote]Okay, then I don't disagree with you. At first it sounded like you were saying that anyone who speaks out against gay marriage is just asking for government trouble.

As far as I understand it, most grassroots movements to define marriage only say that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" or something along those lines.

Almost all of my other arguments were just to confirm what I said first, that the push for gay marriage is a push for a new evil in our society, but I think you agree there.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337643474' post='2433388']
I'll just add this in to make sure I'm clear. I don't think you're redefining marriage, but (to ask my question more clearly): what do you think gives the government such a right and why should the government not defend the traditional understanding of marriage?
[/quote]
Because the government ought not be involved with the business of marriage in the first place. I don't know exactly how the two got so entangled, although I would hazard that it would be because the Church and the state were all but indistinguishable from one another for a number of centuries. Seeing that the status of things now is so much different than in the middle ages, I don't think that the roles of government in religion should be the same either, since the two have diverged to such a great degree.
The Church should fulfill the roles of the Church and the government should fulfill the roles of the government. To me, it is that simple.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337644111' post='2433396']
As far as I understand it, most grassroots movements to define marriage only say that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" or something along those lines.
[/quote]
But what irks me about that is that it's making it seem as though we need, for whatever reason, the government to give its stamp of approval on what we already know. Maybe it's just a reflection of my personality, but I really don't care what the government has to say about what kind of people are actually married and aren't, because although they have a monopoly on many things, religious definitions are not one of them.

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643271' post='2433384']
That's great. Again, I am not a proponent of gay "marriage". I have not argued for that once in this whole debate. Two homosexual individuals could not, of course, ever be married.
[/quote]
What exactly is it that you are arguing for?

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it appears you oppose states excluding homosexual couples from being legally recognized as "marriage." You're not for them "marrying," but you're against states not recognizing them as married - have I got that correct?

[dominicansoul]

i like Soc's blog

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643858' post='2433392']
You are a silly man.
[/quote]
You're a funny woman.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337642565' post='2433376']
You apparently only want government to have a say in marriage if it is by federal courts "legislating from the bench" to enforce legal "gay marriage" on the states.

And have you even read the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH's CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url], written by our current Holy Father as Prefect of the CDF?

He agrees with me that fully that the state has a [b]duty[/b] to [b]"promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good"[/b] and that[b] "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.[/b]

So do you "rep the Pope" regarding marriage, or is Benedict XVI merely another right-wing Republican wackjob, whose teachings on marriage and such can safely be tossed aside by faithful Catholics?

Curiouser and curiouser indeed.
[/quote][quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337642565' post='2433376']
You apparently only want government to have a say in marriage if it is by federal courts "legislating from the bench" to enforce legal "gay marriage" on the states.

And have you even read the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH's CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url], written by our current Holy Father as Prefect of the CDF?

He agrees with me that fully that the state has a [b]duty[/b] to [b]"promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good"[/b] and that[b] "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.[/b]

So do you "rep the Pope" regarding marriage, or is Benedict XVI merely another right-wing Republican wackjob, whose teachings on marriage and such can safely be tossed aside by faithful Catholics?

Curiouser and curiouser indeed.
[/quote]

Benedict is actually not a republican. And I'm pretty sure that you don't apply this standard of adherence regarding the plethora of issues that your Pope has spoken out on (things like climate change, income inequality, unfettered capitalism et cetera) that don't fit in your imitation-Hanity talking points.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337644533' post='2433405']
You're a funny woman.
[/quote]
I'm a fabulous lady, you beesh!

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337644533' post='2433405']
You're a funny woman.
[/quote]

This homoerotic subtext is making me slightly uncomfortable.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337645233' post='2433412']
This homoerotic subtext is making me slightly uncomfortable.
[/quote]

razzle dazzle story, babe. Now make me a sandwich.

[4588686]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337646237' post='2433420']

razzle dazzle story, babe. Now make me a sandwich.
[/quote]

Don't give me lip, boy.