Do you support imposing your belief system on non-believers?

For example, do you oppose same-sex marriage? If so, would you also support banning premarital sex under penalty of law?

3 Likes

is that the right way of looking at it? when we change a definition of something to make it include something it was never meant to include, we are not opposing anything. the others are imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. why is it so important for these unions to be called a marriage?

it isn’t about imposing laws

11 Likes

The premise of your question is haywire because when a law is passed, then some group’s belief system is going to get imposed on another group.

As an example, there were huge groups of people in USA who didn’t think women should have the right to vote. When women were given the vote, then the belief system of those who believed women should have the right to vote was imposed on the group who didn’t agree.

You’ve made it into a loaded question by selecting hot-button sexuality issues. Gay marriage was essentially imposed by the courts on large groups of people who didn’t support it.

Furthermore, it’s entirely possible that there are non-believers out there who still don’t like the idea of gay people getting married for all kinds of reasons, including a belief that gay sex is against the natural law, the economic consequences of having to provide benefits for a whole new class of spouses who wouldn’t have gotten those benefits before, or the belief that the marriage laws aren’t the best vehicle to address the needs of gays and other non-traditional relationship partners (polys, etc).

Not much point in trying to engage in a discussion on a loaded question.

25 Likes

How do you define “imposing your belief system on non-believers” ?
Please offer examples.

2 Likes

Yes.

No.
…

7 Likes

I’ve posted this post exhaustingly, so the usual folks, just scroll past, thanks.

Since the pill has come on the scene and any boundaries that the culture had regarding sex outside of marriage has crumbled, we have seen the fruit of this sexual revolution, and it’s not pretty.

Women, who have the mistaken idea that the pill will keep them safe from pregnancy, have seen a sky rocketing of pregnancy, and then the demand for the back up of abortion. This is not good for women, it’s certainly not good for babies, and it allows men to side step the consequences of their actions which is not good for men. It is certainly not good for a nation.

The types of sexually transmitted diseases have gone up in what a person can catch, and the amount of people infected by these have skyrocketed. Not good for people, not good for a nation.

Statistics don’t measure broken hearts, broken families, and the loss of that baby, who was aborted, would have contributed to the success of the nation. That baby would likely have gone on and been a parent and a grandparent, offered skills and talents, and contributed to the paying of taxes and all that goes into social networks.

Today we have the most liberal laws and it seems as though it still isn’t enough. The slow motion train wreck is right before our eyes. How is it defensible?

God’s design for sex within the context of marriage, for the good of babies, the good of both men and women, and the building of society and nations is a good plan. It has order, like the foundation of a sky rise building. The sexual revolution has brought chaos and crumbling. Heartache. And yet, with the results in, there is still a demand for more easing of any constraints.

Love does not ask a woman to risk pregnancy, risk her health, her schooling, her career. Love comes before family and friends to make a commitment to her, so that together they can build a life. I want that for my daughters and grand daughters. I sure want young men to model that for the young women they date. To show them love and what it means.

13 Likes

No, because law involves government, and church and state are always to remain separated, as the founders of our nation wisely realized.

Also, banning certain behaviors is ineffective. People just go underground and do them secretly. Look at what happened with Prohibition, before it was finally repealed.

Whenever attempts have been made to legislate morality, they have failed.

Besides, in a free society, it would be a form of tyranny to IMPOSE one’s beliefs on anyone else. It’s one thing to express those beliefs, and quite another to try to force them on other people.

It’s okay to try to change behavior by explaining why it’s wrong, but as long as we still have free will, we must make up our own minds.

3 Likes

I prefer to take the proactive approach telling why good morals are important. And by trying to set any example through my own actions.
I am against laws that prohibit one thing or another.
There are some to seem to think that doing things that are against the law is exciting.
For example, prohibition.
When alcoholic beverages were made illegal, bootleggers and smugglers made a lot of money bringing the booze into the country.
It was easy to get a drink.
Some were excited about going into speakeasies.
Once prohibition was repealed, the alcohol industry was regulated. Laws were set forth about what hours restaurants or bars could sell alcohol.

2 Likes

Forcing people into a morality isn’t genuine so I wouldn’t support that.

The law - any law - is based upon a belief system. Law is a good thing to have, is it not?

Laws are also partially based on what contributes to a healthy, well-ordered and self-perpetuating society.

2 Likes

Yes, I oppose “same-sex marriage.”

HOWEVER, I do support giving two roomates (whether they are hetorsexual/homosexual couples, plutonic friends, siblings, parent & adult child, cousins, etc “next of kin” rights which are equal to spousal rights. In other words, roommates who choose to share in each other lives (whether romantically or not) should have the right to be on each others insurance, have hospital visitation rights, next of kin rights, etc IF they so choose to.

No. Banning premarital sex under penalty of law would only make things worse.

5 Likes

The passing of any law that does not have 100% support is an imposition on the non-supporters.

4 Likes

@K9Buck

Opposing legal recognition and rights of same-sex marriage can be argued extremely effectively without quoting anything from the Bible and it is not an exclusively Catholic idea (China is an officially atheist country that is hostile towards religion, and yet it does not recognize same-sex marriage for prudential and pragmatic reasons).

It’s widely viewed that criminalizing premarital sex would make things worse, therefore the Aquinas principle applies that it is better for it to remain legal than for it to be illegal. Not everything that is sinful needs to be illegal, but if it is for promoting and protecting the common good than it should be illegal.

2 Likes

In our current society, no. Christians must recognize that we now have a minority status in Western nations and must adapt accordingly. Here in America we are fortunate enough to have a majority of faithful Christians in some states that pass abortion restrictions like the Georgia heartbeat abortion bill. However a time will soon come when that may not be the case. Christian history is coming full circle: we started out in the catacombs, then we rose to dominate the Western world, and we may soon be forced back into the catacombs.

I don’t speak for most Catholics and get in trouble when I say things like . . .

No, I don’t support the law stepping in to stop sexual behavior between two consenting adults, even if said behavior goes against my faith.

3 Likes

Aquinas answers to the question… “Whether it belongs to the human law to repress all vices?”… in the Summa Theologica.

(The) law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts. Now a measure should be homogeneous with that which it measures, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 3,4, since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition, for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be “possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country.” Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

2 Likes

No, that would be pointless and foolish. And excessively punitive.
(you should also note that premarital relations is not an institution looking to equate itself with the marriage of a man and woman, as is the gay marriage agenda)

I support human life. That requires marriage of a man and woman. I support the marriage of a man and woman and the stable families that result.
I support a civil system that affirms essential humanity that is necessary for the existence and flourishing of human beings.
That includes you and I, gay people straight people black white brown pointed spock ears fatnugly and even potus. We all have mothers and fathers.

Exactly one mother, and exactly one father. That ought to be recognized as uniquely “good” (hope that’s not too religious!) and society ought to promote it as a unique good.

There, I hope I wasn’t too punitive, or too overbearingly religious.

Not a single person was forced to enter a gay marriage without their consent. Conversely gay people wanting to enter a government recognized union were forced to observe Christian definitions.

This was the mistake in my opinion, getting the government involved in marriage, government has principles such as equal treatment under the law that are going to conflict with religious teachings on marriage.

1 Like

This is a prudential judgement. You are entitled to this view.

The enforcement “bedroom laws” is very difficult to do in a just way, so your view is acceptable.

1 Like

Gay people wanting to be…like a man and woman…are not forced to to observe Christian definitions.

A man and woman are…a man and woman.
A cat is a cat, a tree is a tree. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and
THERE I GO AGAIN SPOUTING MY RELIGION!
sorry i’ll try to be a little less religious

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.