Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old Feb 12, '12, 6:45 pm
hazmat's Avatar
hazmat hazmat is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2012
Posts: 288
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

its not arbitrary; its equal rights/civil rights under the constitution of the usa. if a male citizen has the right to marry a woman, then a female citizen must have that same right (to marry a woman).
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old Feb 12, '12, 7:26 pm
LeafByNiggle's Avatar
LeafByNiggle LeafByNiggle is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Posts: 1,859
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
its not arbitrary; its equal rights/civil rights under the constitution of the usa. if a male citizen has the right to marry a woman, then a female citizen must have that same right (to marry a woman).
That depends on how you define the right. A more reasonable understanding of that right is that "a male citizen has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex". With that understanding of the right the corresponding identical right for a woman is "a female citizen also has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex" (i.e. a man). It is hard to make the case that your interpretation of the meaning of the right is the correct one while mine is wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old Feb 12, '12, 7:52 pm
exnihilo exnihilo is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Posts: 1,444
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
its not arbitrary; its equal rights/civil rights under the constitution of the usa. if a male citizen has the right to marry a woman, then a female citizen must have that same right (to marry a woman).
No because that does not correspond to what marriage is. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman for the creation and raising of children. Since members of the same sex can not create children this precludes marriage for them. Every person has the opportunity to marry. That necessitates that the two parties be of different sexes because that is what marriage is.
__________________
We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One fear cures another. When man's terror scares you, turn your thoughts to the wrath of God.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old Feb 12, '12, 11:07 pm
hazmat's Avatar
hazmat hazmat is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2012
Posts: 288
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

the definitions dont really matter. it didnt matter when marriage was defined as between a man and woman of the same race--that was "equal" too. you can define stuff any way you want to; but the fact that youve defined it so its inherently discriminatory probably wont impress a supreme court.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old Feb 13, '12, 4:07 am
LeafByNiggle's Avatar
LeafByNiggle LeafByNiggle is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Posts: 1,859
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
the definitions dont really matter. it didnt matter when marriage was defined as between a man and woman of the same race--that was "equal" too. you can define stuff any way you want to; but the fact that youve defined it so its inherently discriminatory probably wont impress a supreme court.
Of course definitions matter. Otherwise people cannot communicate with each other because they wont know what words mean.

As for interracial marriage, that was always understood to be a possible kind of marriage, even when laws made such a marriage illegal. Not so with same-sex marriage. That has never been considered a kind of marriage. You might just as well advocate for the right to marry an avocado. It makes as much sense.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old Feb 13, '12, 4:52 am
BobCatholic BobCatholic is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 4,493
Religion: Catholic
Default why homosexuality is wrong

Same-sex "marriage" is wrong because it promotes homosexuality which is wrong.

And it is wrong to promote a wrong behavior. We don't tell people it is OK to rape, steal, or hurt others for obvious reasons.

I have a secular argument against homosexuality, which shows that it is not good. I use the "if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander" argument. Suppose I were to have magic powers and snapped my fingers, turning everyone into homosexuals. After all, if it is good for one person to be homosexual, it must be good for all to be homosexual. The result would be simple: The human race would be extinct in 100 years.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old Feb 13, '12, 7:12 am
exnihilo exnihilo is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Posts: 1,444
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
\ut the fact that youve defined it so its inherently discriminatory probably wont impress a supreme court.
Not being impressed by a body that found a right to murder in the US constitution is no dishonor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle View Post
As for interracial marriage, that was always understood to be a possible kind of marriage, even when laws made such a marriage illegal. Not so with same-sex marriage. That has never been considered a kind of marriage.
Precisely. There were laws against interracial marriage precisely because it was a type of marriage. Even today there are laws against marriage based on age. And there are laws against multiple marriages e.g. bigamy or polygamy. Of course some will point to laws against 'gay marriage' but these have only come about recently because of the effort by some to recreate what marriage fundamentally means.
__________________
We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One fear cures another. When man's terror scares you, turn your thoughts to the wrath of God.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old Feb 13, '12, 9:58 am
hazmat's Avatar
hazmat hazmat is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2012
Posts: 288
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle View Post
Of course definitions matter. Otherwise people cannot communicate with each other because they wont know what words mean.

As for interracial marriage, that was always understood to be a possible kind of marriage, even when laws made such a marriage illegal. Not so with same-sex marriage. That has never been considered a kind of marriage. You might just as well advocate for the right to marry an avocado. It makes as much sense.
they dont matter in the context of us law. if you define a marriage as one between men and women of the same race, it wont make a difference that youve defined it that way to the supreme court. if you define it as one between a man and woman of the same religion, it wont matter to them either. to them, all is relative to the constitution; if they find it conflicts with the constitution, they wont allow it.

no one can marry avocados right now. youre talking about rights no one has. right now, men can marry women--thats a reality right now, so women need to have that same right for things to be equal. if a citizen was given the right to marry an avocado, then you could make a case for it being a civil right to marry an avocado, but not before then.

bobcatholic, abstinence is not good either. haha.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old Feb 13, '12, 10:23 am
exnihilo exnihilo is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2011
Posts: 1,444
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
they dont matter in the context of us law. if you define a marriage as one between men and women of the same race, it wont make a difference that youve defined it that way to the supreme court. if you define it as one between a man and woman of the same religion, it wont matter to them either. to them, all is relative to the constitution; if they find it conflicts with the constitution, they wont allow it.
You seem to regard the SCOTUS much more than I do. Sophists with agendas are not excluded from this body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
no one can marry avocados right now. youre talking about rights no one has. right now, men can marry women--thats a reality right now, so women need to have that same right for things to be equal. if a citizen was given the right to marry an avocado, then you could make a case for it being a civil right to marry an avocado, but not before then.
The right to marry is to a member of the opposite sex and everyone has this right. You want to create a new right which is to 'marry' a member of the same sex. There is nothing discriminatory about the current state of affairs because neither I nor a gay person can marry a member of the same sex. The law discriminates in no way because the rule is universal and not limited to one class of people.
__________________
We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One fear cures another. When man's terror scares you, turn your thoughts to the wrath of God.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old Feb 13, '12, 10:37 am
hazmat's Avatar
hazmat hazmat is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2012
Posts: 288
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

their agenda is to uphold the constitution, whether you agree or not. i think they do a pretty good job. marrying men is not a new right. marrying women is not a new right. you can play the separate but equal game all you like.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old Feb 13, '12, 10:38 am
Fone Bone 2001 Fone Bone 2001 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Posts: 1,850
Religion: Catholic Christian
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
the definitions dont really matter. it didnt matter when marriage was defined as between a man and woman of the same race--that was "equal" too.
Actually, that was not the anti-miscegenation racists' definition. No one ever said that an interracial marriage was not marriage; some people just wanted it to be illegal. To assert otherwise is to rewrite history...
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old Feb 13, '12, 10:47 am
hazmat's Avatar
hazmat hazmat is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2012
Posts: 288
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

im not talking about websters dictionary definitions, fone.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old Feb 13, '12, 11:04 am
LeafByNiggle's Avatar
LeafByNiggle LeafByNiggle is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Posts: 1,859
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
they dont matter in the context of us law. if you define a marriage as one between men and women of the same race..
But no one ever did that. As I said before, even when interracial marriage was illegal, it was still understood by everyone that it was a kind of marriage. That is, everyone had the same definition in their heads as to what the word marriage meant. They just disagreed over whether it should be illegal. I'm still going to stand by my assertion that same-sex marriage makes as much sense as marriage to an avocado.
Quote:
no one can marry avocados right now. you're talking about rights no one has. right now.
If we had been having this discussion 100 years ago I could also say that no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex right now.
Quote:
men can marry women--thats a reality right now, so women need to have that same right for things to be equal.
Let me illustrate the fallacy of your logic another way. If I am a woman, then any man has the right to marry me. Or, if we allow same-sex marriage, then any person has the right to marry me. But there would still be one person to whom that right would be denied. Any guess as to who that person is? Answer: it is me! I cannot marry myself. So according to your logic I am being denied a right that everyone else has. Is that not unfair? I think you should start a campaign to allow same-person marriage. It makes as much sense as same-sex marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old Feb 13, '12, 11:09 am
Fone Bone 2001 Fone Bone 2001 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Posts: 1,850
Religion: Catholic Christian
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazmat View Post
im not talking about websters dictionary definitions, fone.
Neither am I.

Regardless of one's views on marriage, it remains true that on an objective level, the comparison to anti-miscegenation laws is logically flawed. That doesn't disprove gay marriage; you don't lose the argument by admitting it. Not at all.

I'm just saying that interracial marriage bans were exactly that: bans (and unjust ones) on marriage for certain people. Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman isn't a ban on "gay marriage" but rather a participation in a social structure that finds the concept of marriage to be legally and socially inapplicable outside the context of an exclusive, lifelong union of partners capable of genital union.

This issue isn't about homosexuality. Let me repeat: this issue isn't about homosexuality. It's about whether marriage by definition is anything more than a union of entities who love each other. If it's all about love, then sex - of whatever variety - shouldn't factor into the legal category at all, nor should exclusivity or permanence.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old Feb 13, '12, 11:30 am
hazmat's Avatar
hazmat hazmat is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2012
Posts: 288
Default Re: A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

leaf, im talking about law. it wasnt regarded as a real marriage (e.g., kirby v. kirby). my argument has nothing to do with the fact that there are gay couples married today (referring to your 100 yrs ago comment). im not sure how you would distinguish between one who is married to themselves and one who is not, but sure, you could make that case.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8257Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5022CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4346Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: FootStool
4029OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: B79
3835SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3571Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3230Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3207Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Chast Forever
3139Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3049For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Thomas Choe



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:48 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.