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
  #16  
Old Apr 25, '12, 11:48 am
BellsMom BellsMom is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2010
Posts: 212
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sw85 View Post
Homosexual unions are entitled to nothing from society, because they contribute nothing to society.
I think this is false. Family units, no matter what their make up all contribute to society in different ways.

The idea that a union or family made up of people who will not be parents, either because of age, biology or choice doesn't make them any less a family.

Ted Olson wrote an exceptional piece for Newsweek about this very thing.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-marriage.html
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Apr 25, '12, 11:55 am
Eleve's Avatar
Eleve Eleve is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2009
Posts: 712
Religion: None
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sw85 View Post
I'm not sure about that. To me, "discrimination" is a functionally meaningless word; I just don't care about it. Discrimination is bad when it's unjust and neutral or good when it isn't, so let's quit talking about "discrimination" and just talk about whether something is just or not. Whether something is good or not is determined more by whether it is just or not, not whether it is discriminatory (or whether it makes someone feel discriminatory).
I think this is true. But Odell is trying to claim specifically not just that something is unjust, but that it's discriminatory. I think that the argument fails and that, while the conclusion may be true, it would have to be true for some other reason than the claim of discrimination.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Apr 25, '12, 11:57 am
sw85 sw85 is offline
Account Under Review
 
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Posts: 3,550
Religion: Baptized and confirmed Easter Vigil, 2012
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BellsMom View Post
I think this is false. Family units, no matter what their make up all contribute to society in different ways.
Let me rephrase. They are by nature incapable of contributing to society in the manner for which marriage is intended to provide structure, i.e., childbearing or family-raising.

Heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children because of sterility are only accidentally incapable of such. Homosexual couples by contrast are essentially incapable of it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Apr 25, '12, 12:18 pm
Baelor Baelor is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2011
Posts: 2,153
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sw85 View Post
"Justice" is the principle according to which everything is given that which is due to it. Thus, for instance, "justice" involves giving the righteous their due reward and the wicked their due punishment.
That is not a legal definition. And note that there is also the prejudicial component to the action.


Quote:
Homosexual unions are entitled to nothing from society, because they contribute nothing to society. Gay sex is simply not a matter of public interest (except insofar as it poses a public health threat). Such unions are infertile by nature. Therefore, giving them anything just for being a homosexual union qua a homosexual union is unjust.
Again, not a legal definition.


Quote:
Simply put, the demand that homosexuals be treated exactly like heterosexuals, despite not being exactly like homosexuals, constitutes a demand that justice be curtailed in the name of... well, I'm not sure what exactly. I suppose making homosexuals feel better about themselves?
There is still no discrimination. The legal code does not treat heterosexual marriages in a unique way. I fail to see how a group not even mentioned or singled out by the legal code faces discrimination by the same.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Apr 25, '12, 12:40 pm
sw85 sw85 is offline
Account Under Review
 
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Posts: 3,550
Religion: Baptized and confirmed Easter Vigil, 2012
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baelor View Post
That is not a legal definition. And note that there is also the prejudicial component to the action.

Again, not a legal definition.
...So?

It's the philosophical definition, i.e., the one rooted in rational reflection of the order of being. Legal definitions are second-order derivations of philosophical definitions. To the extent legal definitions don't fully reflect them, they're deficient and need to be rewritten accordingly.

So if your argument is that justice the way it's presently defined by the (Satanic, atheistic, Masonic) present age demands homosexual "marriage," then that sounds like a really good reason not to give a fig about such "justice."

Quote:
There is still no discrimination. The legal code does not treat heterosexual marriages in a unique way. I fail to see how a group not even mentioned or singled out by the legal code faces discrimination by the same.
I'm not interested in defending the OP's claim that gay "marriage" constitutes discrimination against heterosexuals. I thought that was clear from the post. I am certainly interested in defending the claim that gay "marriage" constitutes an injustice to heterosexual couples.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Apr 25, '12, 1:20 pm
Baelor Baelor is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2011
Posts: 2,153
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sw85 View Post
It's the philosophical definition, i.e., the one rooted in rational reflection of the order of being. Legal definitions are second-order derivations of philosophical definitions. To the extent legal definitions don't fully reflect them, they're deficient and need to be rewritten accordingly.
Philosophical definitions can be flawed, and there is still ambiguity. Furthermore, the definition I gave before was not necessarily philosophical, so leaping off of it as if it were is problematic.


Quote:
I'm not interested in defending the OP's claim that gay "marriage" constitutes discrimination against heterosexuals. I thought that was clear from the post. I am certainly interested in defending the claim that gay "marriage" constitutes an injustice to heterosexual couples.
That does not mean heterosexuals are discriminated against. That simply means that homosexual marriages are given the same status as heterosexual marriages.


I still fail to see how a group can face discrimination without being singled out or given different treatment.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Apr 25, '12, 1:39 pm
sw85 sw85 is offline
Account Under Review
 
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Posts: 3,550
Religion: Baptized and confirmed Easter Vigil, 2012
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baelor View Post
Philosophical definitions can be flawed, and there is still ambiguity. Furthermore, the definition I gave before was not necessarily philosophical, so leaping off of it as if it were is problematic.
The definition you gave before wasn't a definition of justice but of discrimination. And it wasn't a "legal" definition, either, you just copied it out of a (non-legal) dictionary. So I hardly see complaining how my understanding of justice isn't a "legal" one in any way invalidates my pointing out that your (equally not a legal definition of) discrimination doesn't preclude the claim that heterosexual couples are discriminated against by virtue of gay "marriage" laws.

To wit, here's the definition you provided: "discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things."

OK, so if discrimination amounts to the unjust treatment of different categories of people, and if homosexual "marriage" is in fact unjust, then the arrangement is discriminatory, especially when you consider what I wrote in the same post:

This is especially true when you consider that the things that normally accrue to married couples with families, such as tax benefits, are part of a kind of zero sum pot. If government spending remains constant, expanding the pool of people entitled to tax breaks simply for being married must necessarily either (a) entail a cut in government spending and thus benefits, (b) entail a cut in the size of the tax break, or (c) entail an increase in debt which must eventually be retired by means (a) or (b).


In other words, we don't have an infinite supply of stuff we can give out for free. We have a limited amount of stuff. Increasing the number of people given stuff decreases the amount of stuff each individual person gets. Given that one group of people (heterosexual couples) have a legitimate claim to that stuff and another group of people (homosexual couples) don't, by decreasing the amount of stuff given the former to give stuff to the latter you have (a) unjust (b) differential treatment of two groups of people. Which is discrimination, by the definition you provided.

Whether the definition you provided is objectively correct is not something I care about. In fact, I don't care about "discrimination" at all. Where discrimination is not unjust, it's not bad. So our main concern should not be whether or not gay "marriage" is discriminatory but whether or not it's just. It isn't just, therefore it's bad regardless of its discriminatory character.

Quote:
That does not mean heterosexuals are discriminated against. That simply means that homosexual marriages are given the same status as heterosexual marriages.
Again, I don't care whether this arrangement constitutes discrimination. That's pedantic trivia to me. I care about the fact that it's an injustice.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Apr 25, '12, 2:22 pm
Baelor Baelor is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2011
Posts: 2,153
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sw85 View Post
The definition you gave before wasn't a definition of justice but of discrimination. And it wasn't a "legal" definition, either, you just copied it out of a (non-legal) dictionary. So I hardly see complaining how my understanding of justice isn't a "legal" one in any way invalidates my pointing out that your (equally not a legal definition of) discrimination doesn't preclude the claim that heterosexual couples are discriminated against by virtue of gay "marriage" laws.

To wit, here's the definition you provided: "discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things."

OK, so if discrimination amounts to the unjust treatment of different categories of people, and if homosexual "marriage" is in fact unjust, then the arrangement is discriminatory, especially when you consider what I wrote in the same post:

This is especially true when you consider that the things that normally accrue to married couples with families, such as tax benefits, are part of a kind of zero sum pot. If government spending remains constant, expanding the pool of people entitled to tax breaks simply for being married must necessarily either (a) entail a cut in government spending and thus benefits, (b) entail a cut in the size of the tax break, or (c) entail an increase in debt which must eventually be retired by means (a) or (b).


In other words, we don't have an infinite supply of stuff we can give out for free. We have a limited amount of stuff. Increasing the number of people given stuff decreases the amount of stuff each individual person gets. Given that one group of people (heterosexual couples) have a legitimate claim to that stuff and another group of people (homosexual couples) don't, by decreasing the amount of stuff given the former to give stuff to the latter you have (a) unjust (b) differential treatment of two groups of people. Which is discrimination, by the definition you provided.

Whether the definition you provided is objectively correct is not something I care about. In fact, I don't care about "discrimination" at all. Where discrimination is not unjust, it's not bad. So our main concern should not be whether or not gay "marriage" is discriminatory but whether or not it's just. It isn't just, therefore it's bad regardless of its discriminatory character.



Again, I don't care whether this arrangement constitutes discrimination. That's pedantic trivia to me. I care about the fact that it's an injustice.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Apr 25, '12, 3:00 pm
ASimon ASimon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: July 29, 2011
Posts: 828
Religion: None
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sw85 View Post
Let me rephrase. They are by nature incapable of contributing to society in the manner for which marriage is intended to provide structure, i.e., childbearing or family-raising.

Heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children because of sterility are only accidentally incapable of such. Homosexual couples by contrast are essentially incapable of it.
But they're not. Certainly not of family-raising. And lesbian couples, provided the requisite medical intervention, can also bear children.

What they're not capable of doing, as couples, is conceive a child in the natural way. And the thing is, your argument would be on firmer ground if you simply made it about the metaphysical stakes tied to that one particular act. Instead, you're trying export your theological standard, and pretend it matches society's standard.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Apr 25, '12, 7:01 pm
Odell Odell is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2006
Posts: 2,027
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against.

Im willing to admit discrimination wasn't the best of terms. Somebody smarter than me has come along and dine a better job linking the two. I happen to agree that justice is a better term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baelor View Post
That does not mean heterosexuals are discriminated against. That simply means that homosexual marriages are given the same status as heterosexual marriages.
.
They want the same status when it's not the same at all. The very act in and in of it's self is sterile. We are different whether if they want to admit it or not.
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
8448Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: jerrythetrucker
5139CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: hopeful01
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3733Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3315Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3280Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3223Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3107For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:11 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.