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

[Socrates]

lol. Who said that nothing good can come out of Christianity? I simply rejected a stupid, unhistorical, ideological title. If a book's title can't even be historically credible, why would I waste my time when there are so many books out there to read.

 

And you are correct about the "Dark Ages." In fact, I just read a book on the subject, "The Inheritance of Rome" by by Christopher Wickham (who is an actual historian, and whose command of his subject is massive). His central thesis is that the Western "Dark Ages" were neither alien to Roman civilization (they carried on much of it), and neither were the Dark Ages the embryo of Christian Europe, Free Market Capitalism, or anything else. Each age exists on its own terms, which he explores in great detail, from the Carolingian/Ottonian empires in the West, to Byzantium, to the Ummayad/Abbasid Caliphates.

 

Lots of things have roots in Christian/Catholic thinkers. How could they not? Religion dominated the Middle Ages and the revolt from it. Lots of great things have been influenced by Christian thinkers. But it's a giant leap from that to making an ideological metanarrative about "free market capitalism" when the vast majority of Christian/Catholic society were peasants. For a "revealed religion" it's not much of a boast to say it took 1300 years to begin developing vague concepts like "free market capitalism." What a curiousity that Christianity happened to wait until the world started secularizing to invent modern bourgeois civilization (which is not, in fact, true, the church was a great enemy of bourgeois individualism and liberty).

 

Okay, so you don't like the title.  I don't think the title's all that bad, as the main point is to counter the popular but false notion that Christianity and the Church were always enemies of reason, science, art, the free market, etc., showing how many concepts such as scientific inquiry, free market economics, and certain individual rights actually first developed in a Catholic/Christian civilization, often by highly religious men.

Claims such as those that medieval Christendom are essentially the same as modern North Korea or the USSR are ignorant nonsense.

 

No, free market "capitalism" is not some revealed dogma of the Faith, but was first developed by medieval Catholics, rather than something opposed to the Faith (though he devotes a chapter to how it was later despotically opposed by Spanish and French monarchs).

 

The book's actually a lot more nuanced than you seem to presume it to be, and if you actually read it, you'd probably find you agree more than you think you do.  The so-called "middle ages" covers a roughly thousand year period over a large portion of the world, so it cannot be treated as some monolith.

 

But unless someone wants to say something who's actually read the book, I think I'm through with this topic.

[Winchester]

[Amppax]

This is all laughable. There is no God. Your beliefs are just a silly superstition. And your totalitarian goals, while morally appalling, would be frightening they weren't so irrelevant. 

 

Good thing that an open society protects your right to hold these silly and disgusting beliefs.  

 

I really don't understand why you're so dismissive. It's one thing not to believe in God, but to call that belief laughable seems laughable itself. There's a pretty hefty intellectual tradition of theism, and to dismiss it so cavalierly seems pretty juvenile. I'd like to think you're better than that. 

[4588686]

I really don't understand why you're so dismissive. It's one thing not to believe in God, but to call that belief laughable seems laughable itself. There's a pretty hefty intellectual tradition of theism, and to dismiss it so cavalierly seems pretty juvenile. I'd like to think you're better than that. 

 

 

Sure. My point in being do dismissive is that as society become more and more secular, which it unquestionably is, and more and more religious people interpret their religious traditions in more generic/liberal ways, strong religious convictions are going to be viewed as more and more eccentric and less and less worthy of respect (a show that regular makes blasphemous depictions of Christ like South Park does could not have existed on a mainstream channel 30 years ago).

 

I won't deny that I intentionally needle people who say things that offend me in a really profound and visceral way, like An Historan's statements about how the Church should be politically powerful and eager to use that force to smash error, but my main point in belittling the beliefs was to point out that as secularism becomes more and more encroached it would be wise for reactionary Catholics like some posting here to join in affirming the importance of a society that recognizes that error (like their religious view points, in my pinion) have a real right to exist. 

[Winchester]

Sure. My point in being do dismissive is that as society become more and more secular, which it unquestionably is, and more and more religious people interpret their religious traditions in more generic/liberal ways, strong religious convictions are going to be viewed as more and more eccentric and less and less worthy of respect (a show that regular makes blasphemous depictions of Christ like South Park does could not have existed on a mainstream channel 30 years ago).

 

I won't deny that I intentionally needle people who say things that offend me in a really profound and visceral way, like An Historan's statements about how the Church should be politically powerful and eager to use that force to smash error, but my main point in belittling the beliefs was to point out that as secularism becomes more and more encroached it would be wise for reactionary Catholics like some posting here to join in affirming the importance of a society that recognizes that error (like their religious view points, in my pinion) have a real right to exist. 

I've had enough of your commie crap.

[Eilish]

I know that I am new here, and that I haven't even completed RCIA yet, but after I left the Mormon church I have learned to live and let live, to not presume to make God's judgments. It is not up to me to decide for anyone else what they do with their lives. The fact that a medical study my son and I went through suggested strongly that a mother with a troubled pregnancy and sons prior may have very low testosterone levels during later pregnancies. I had no traces of testosterone during gestation when my youngest child, a boy, was born. This is only one theory. I saw evidence that my son was different at a very early age with 4 older brothers as his examples, I just couldn't figure out in what way. He was not ever treated differently, camped and fished, played baseball and joined the Boy Scouts but just had trouble fitting in.

I wish the world were different, I wish we were all perfect, but I feel that we have no right to judge those who are different. We should feel grateful that we have the guidance of Pope Francis in our lives and emulate him. I think we should listen to him when he says "who am I to judge them?"

I have many gay friends, and their lives are very difficult. They are very good people, and they cannot always help who they are. I know this, I have seen it, I understand that. My own youngest son said to me when I asked him, "Mom, who would choose this?" God created him the way he is, and what he needs to learn from it only God knows. He is a wonderful person, he does not act on his genetic difference, he is hard-working, he has a few friends but he does not make it known that he is gay. How lonely it must be for him!

Maybe some choose it, who could understand why when the world is so cruel?

I believe strongly in free will, what are we here for but to choose to follow Christ? We do not have the right to force anyone to live our beliefs. I do not have the right to judge, only God has that right and understanding. Who are we to legislate our beliefs and take away the rights of others? Their right to happiness? Government exists to give equal rights to all, and should have absolutely no bearing on any religion.

Life has a funny way of humbling us when we least expect it. We should be happy and grateful for what we have, and have love and compassion for those who do not for whatever the reason.

God loves us all equally. Christ was our living example of that love and forgiveness for us all.

[Winchester]

But people will want to marry their pets, and this will prevent our intestines from absorbing nutrition, and the entire human race will starve.

[little2add]

the government once recognized polygamy and slavery.  that doesn't make it right.

 

the government once outlawed abortion, too 

 

government is fickle     

[Winchester]

the government once recognized polygamy and slavery.  that doesn't make it right.

 

the government once outlawed abortion, too 

 

government is fickle     

You're comparing violations of property rights (slavery and abortion) to a voluntary contract.

 

You do not have the right to prevent people from marrying more than one person. Nor do you possess the right through the dark magicks of the ballot box to hire someone to do it for you.

[pippo buono]

An interesting perspective offered by Ryan Anderson in a talk. What's typed here is only a small portion of a bigger talk:

 

The government should be invested in defending a correct definition of marriage because it is invested in a flourishing society. Having one father and one mother offers a complement that has statistically shown reduces poverty, delinquency and promiscuity, things that generally impede human flourishing. 

 

He offered the example of either a girl or a boy without a father. Statistically, the girl tends to a more promiscuous lifestyle, and the boy to delinquency. What's the reason behind this tendency? Fathers tend to transmit to girls a sense of dignity and value. When they don't have this figure, they seek value in promiscuity. For boys they teach true manhood, without which they tend towards delinquency.

 

Thus besides the right of government to have a role in natural marriage, it is convenient that it should be for the sake of the society that it is trying to govern. In short, providing the ideal environment for children avoids many problems in the future.

[Winchester]

Government is interested in maintaining its power, as is any other criminal syndicate. It is not benevolent. It is not angelic. It is a well dressed murderer. Nothing more.

[Amppax]

Government is interested in maintaining its power, as is any other criminal syndicate. It is not benevolent. It is not angelic. It is a well dressed murderer. Nothing more.

Ever get tired of typing the same thing over and one again?

[Winchester]

Ever get tired of typing the same thing over and one again?

 

I wonder why every inning of baseball features more baseball.

[pippo buono]

Government [...] is a well dressed murderer. Nothing more.

 

All government is like that? What does it mean for the government to be a well dressed murderer? Is it just the system that is like that? But how can a system be so malevolent? Or do you mean the people involved in it? And are they all really "well dressed murderers" and "nothing more"?

[Winchester]

All government is like that? What does it mean for the government to be a well dressed murderer? Is it just the system that is like that? But how can a system be so malevolent? Or do you mean the people involved in it? And are they all really "well dressed murderers" and "nothing more"?

 

It is based in initiation of violence. It is therefore inherently evil. Individuals within the government do good works. The government itself, like any other criminal enterprise, cannot become good by undertaking some good works.

 

http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Anatomy%20of%20the%20State_3.pdf