Same-sex Marriage

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Treehugger' post='1937214' date='Aug 1 2009, 12:49 AM']Does anyone have any advice on how to defend the sanctity of marriage between one man and one women to an atheist who claims to be gay, for example?

Obviously, the arguments should be presented with a level of sensitivity and with reason, societal issues, etc. being emphasized more so than faith and biblical sources.

Any tips?[/quote]


To be honest, you can't. Anything you will say from catholic perspective is either going to be insulting (to a gay) or irrelevant (to an atheist).

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1938423' date='Aug 1 2009, 09:10 PM']To be honest, you can't. Anything you will say from catholic perspective is either going to be insulting (to a gay) or irrelevant (to an atheist).[/quote]

You know, although I'm as conservative/orthodox/whatevs as the next guy, I'd have to agree. I think to believe that marriage is sacred takes an act of faith and can't be contrived by reasoning (though it can play a role). It is true that many people who don't hold religious views will find any religious argument for or against something irrelevant. As for insulting, I can't think of anything, no matter how charitably said, that can't be offensive to most gays. Most of them take everything that has to do with their sexuality extremely personally.

I'd suggest that you make your position known and leave it alone. As Catholics, we're called to be witnesses to the truth. Not all of us, however, are called to hash it out, as it were. Everyone above the age of reason has their own decisions to make, including the ones about what they'll believe and they'll believe what they want period.

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1938154' date='Aug 1 2009, 06:08 PM']If marriage were a "right" in the same sense in which you're trying to make it seem[/quote]

What sense is that?

[quote], one wouldn't need a license to be wed. The possibility of the revocation of said license proves that marriage is not an inalienable right. Marriage laws dictate who can marry and how the process is to be carried out. If marriage were, in fact, a right in the same sense that life or liberty are rights, the two paragraphs that you just quoted would be contradictory.[/quote]

The court never denied that the State's police powers gave it the right to regulate marriage to a certain extent, but it did assert that the 14th amendment prevented it from denying people the right to marry based on arbitrary discrimination.

[Hassan]

Would it be constitutional for a state to give a drivers license to everyone by Jews?

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1938517' date='Aug 1 2009, 11:53 PM']Would it be constitutional for a state to give a drivers license to everyone by Jews?[/quote]

No, though I hardly see how that has to do with the discussion.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1938514' date='Aug 1 2009, 11:49 PM']What sense is that?



The court never denied that the State's police powers gave it the right to regulate marriage to a certain extent, but it did assert that the 14th amendment prevented it from denying people the right to marry based on arbitrary discrimination.[/quote]

1) The distinction between an inalienable right and an alienable right.

2) And I asserted that no matter the restrictions put on the government to regulate marriage, that marriage isn't a right in itself. No one has the "right" for the state to recognize whatever marriage they enter into.

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1938520' date='Aug 1 2009, 10:56 PM']No, though I hardly see how that has to do with the discussion.[/quote]


It is a direct analogy to your argument.

In fact more so as I'm not aware of any USSC case which states that a driver license is a right.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1938525' date='Aug 2 2009, 12:03 AM']It is a direct analogy to your argument.

In fact more so as I'm not aware of any USSC case which states that a driver license is a right.[/quote]

A driver's license is not a right. If you can't pass a road test, you can't get a license.
When you break traffic laws, you get marks on your license. If you get enough, your license gets revoked.

Great analogy.

Edited August 2, 2009 by iheartjp2

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1938529' date='Aug 1 2009, 11:05 PM']A driver's license is not a right.[/quote]


And by your argument since it is not a right the state's may choose who they give it to. So why can't a state decide to give a driver license to any non Jew who passes the test?



I think that any such law would be rightly and clearly denounced as unconstitutional. It seems you agree. Yet you have no problem denying the right (and the USSC has said it is a right) to marry to gay couples.

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1938529' date='Aug 1 2009, 11:05 PM']A driver's license is not a right. If you can't pass a road test, you can't get a license.
When you break traffic laws, you get marks on your license. If you get enough, your license gets revoked.

Great analogy.[/quote]


Yes. I picked that example because I am not aware of anyone who contends that a drivers license is a right.

Which is why it works as an analogy for your claim.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1938533' date='Aug 2 2009, 12:10 AM']Yes. I picked that example because I am not aware of anyone who contends that a drivers license is a right.

Which is why it works as an analogy for your claim.[/quote]

In case you didn't pick up on this when you started an argument with me, marriage is a social institution that affects just about every aspect of life because it's the mortar that holds together the family, the fundamental building block of society. Driving is not an institution of any sort. There should be more thought and discussion put into the issue of marriage and who can enter into it besides "I want it so I think I should have it" so the two aren't comperable.

You see, no Catholic who knows their faith would ever contend that marriage is a right (not that it matters to you). Only someone with a purely secular (and utilitarian) outlook on society would say that marriage is a "right" that can be malliated to fit whatever we want it to be. Marriage is a gift to those who participate in it and to those who are produced by it, not a right.

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1938544' date='Aug 2 2009, 12:25 AM']In case you didn't pick up on this when you started an argument with me, marriage is a social institution that affects just about every aspect of life because it's the mortar that holds together the family, the fundamental building block of society. Driving is not an institution of any sort. There should be more thought and discussion put into the issue of marriage and who can enter into it besides "I want it so I think I should have it" so the two aren't comperable.[/quote]

I don't know what this has to do with the part of your argument I was addressing.

[quote]You see, no Catholic who knows their faith would ever contend that marriage is a right (not that it matters to you). Only someone with a purely secular (and utilitarian) outlook on society would say that marriage is a "right" that can be malliated to fit whatever we want it to be. Marriage is a gift to those who participate in it and to those who are produced by it, not a right.[/quote]


You did not make a claim about what the Catholic Church regarded as a social right for the individual, but rather about what was a right (and the bounds of permissible discrimination) under the United States Constitution.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1938550' date='Aug 1 2009, 11:37 PM']I don't know what this has to do with the part of your argument I was addressing.




You did not make a claim about what the Catholic Church regarded as a social right for the individual, but rather about what was a right (and the bounds of permissible discrimination) under the United States Constitution.[/quote]

[i]"And by your argument since it is not a right the state's may choose who they give it to. So why can't a state decide to give a driver license to any non Jew who passes the test?



I think that any such law would be rightly and clearly denounced as unconstitutional. It seems you agree. Yet you have no problem denying the right (and the USSC has said it is a right) to marry to gay couples."[/i]

That's the part to which I was referring.

Driving isn't an institution. Marriage is a fundamental (maybe even THE fundamental) social institution. The two aren't comperable for obvious reasons. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be an injustice for Jews to be denied driver's licenses, I'm just saying it's not the same thing as gays being barred from marriage. It's not a direct analogy to my claim. For not all analogies being perfect, this one's so lopsided it can't even stand up.

As for the constitution, it claims no such right. I honestly believe the justices mistated themselves there. Marriage isn't merely about what one wants or what they think they want. It's about going into an extremely important agreement that, in most cases, will eventually have more than just the two parties riding on it. That's what should matter more than anything.

I know I just engaged in a long, insightful discussion with you over the topic, but I was only sharing my blogpost for the OPer to use. What, might I ask, did you hope to gain from trolling on a thread that wasn't in the debate table and was for a purpose other than the one you used it for? You know, just curious...

[Skinzo]

QUOTE (Hassan @ Aug 1 2009, 11:49 PM)
What sense is that?


"
The court never denied that the State's police powers gave it the right to regulate marriage to a certain extent, but it did assert that the 14th amendment prevented it from denying people the right to marry based on arbitrary discrimination."

Hassan,
In the case you are citing the court is only saying one has the right to marry someone of another race. I don't think you can cite the case as one that empowers anyone to marry someone of another gender. That is not being addressed.

S.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Skinzo