Redefining Marriage

[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.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And something that bothers me is that by todays standards we aren't allowed to "impose" our morality on others, but they can impose their morality on us. What I mean is that you can't talk about the ten commandments and all of that in school, but our children are being taught that homosexuality and masturbation are good. It's hardly fair. To say that homosexuality and masturbation are evil is a terrible thing because you might offend people who disagree. But if you say they are cool it's commendable despite the fact that you certainly will offend people. It's a double standard.

[dairygirl4u2c]

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.

Someone who wants to prevent civil unions etc. are the ones trying to exert their opinions by majority rule. Instead of voting what you think is moral and not moral, why not vote for what is democratic? The homosexuals are not hurting anyone, they just have different faiths. Even if society falls to moral ruins, the Church will not, so why does what society teaches? What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority vote, like preventing homosexual marriage would cause?

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).

You are right that this is what it comes down to, I agree. I believe the majority should realize they have to consider other people's morals. What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority moral vote, like preventing homosexual marriage would cause?

Basing it on the majority's moral vote would itself be immoral when you could base it on the moral majority vote to be democratic and considerate of other faiths.

Edited February 12, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

Someone who wants to prevent civil unions etc. are the ones trying to exert their opinions by majority rule. Instead of voting what you think is moral and not moral, why not vote for what is democratic? The homosexuals are not hurting anyone, they just have different faiths. Even if society falls to moral ruins, the Church will not, so why does what society teaches? What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority vote, like preventing homosexual marriage would cause?

I think you missed the point of my post.

I'm sure most people who oppose the homosexual agenda do so for ideological reasons that go beyond "because it's the majority opinion". They may play this card but that's incidental. And the homosexual agenda is not a "faith", its an ideology. And those who oppose it, I would say, generally do so because they perceive it's values as a threat to the common good.

You over simplify the issues. And the responsibilities of our government go far beyond the scope of a simple, reductionism or merely catering to the strongest lobbying forces.

[hyperdulia again]

for many people who support homosexual marriages it is a paart of their faith. they see evil in the opposition to it--they feel convicted by almighty god for not raising their voices against what they percieve as a closedminded bigoted and dangerous prejudice. some people who support homosexual marriages see god battling with them for the right of his children to love whoever they choose to love and fear the loss of their immortal souls if they sit back silently and do nothing.

[hyperdulia again]

some people think the "heterosexual agenda" crawled out of the pit of hell.

[hyperdulia again]

And no my posts aren't apologia pro gay marriages. They are simple statements that everyone who supports them is not crazy athiest secularist idealogue. But for many people this is a belief as deeply held as any other. To many Gay and Lesbian Christians the historic teaching seems like a betrayal of the Gospel.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yes, and some people think Kentucky Fried Chicken is the same as Auschwitz. Some people think Michael Jackson is god. Some people think that aliens created the planet earth and have come to a NASCAR driver to setup an embassy.

Get real hyper, in the political sphere the question is ideological, not "religious".

I'm talking about the "agenda", the lobbies, etc. Not individual homosexuals, I know that there is a vast variety.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And no my posts aren't apologia pro gay marriages. They are simple statements that everyone who supports them is not crazy athiest secularist idealogue. But for many people this is a belief as deeply held as any other. To many Gay and Lesbian Christians the historic teaching seems like a betrayal of the Gospel.

I am aware of gay theology and gay hermeneutics. But seriously, I think that is a different discussion. And I don't think I can have that discussion and maintain a healthy level of tact.

[hyperdulia again]

but you can have tact whhen protestants call your eucharistic lord a cracker? interesting.

Edited February 12, 2004 by hyperdulia again

[Laudate_Dominum]

but you can have tact whhen protestants call your eucharist lord a cracker? interesting.

Actually I often regret what I write in response to protestants (especially Larry). Tact is not one of my strong points to begin with, but this is a particularly charged issue. And I must admit, I spent most of my early years as a street kid so my attitude toward the homosexual lifestyle is coloured by that experience. Many of my friends were junkies who were horrifically abuses by those who keep child prostitution flourishing on our streets. My experience of our cities gay districts was anything but wholesome and charming.