Ignoring something does not make it false. Lots of people steal too. Is your claim that if enough people steal we should legalize it?
So you’re seriously comparing using contraceptives to theft?
The majority of America is Christian.
Can you explain to me why the Supreme Court could not nullify the claim you are making, and declare that children do have the right to give consent? Can you explain to me why there is any check on what laws the Supreme Court could make, or what rights the Supreme Court could “discover” in the Constitution, given enough intervening cases?
At any rate, this looks more like an application of reducto ad absurdum.
You said “what’s wrong with expanding rights”? I said that children don’t have the right to determine whether they can have sex. I think that’s a good thing. So you must AGREE with me that children should NOT have this right. No reductio ad absurdum; just showing that your original question was absurd.
The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution.
To interpret laws. So you tell me which law or article of law is being interpreted, when we say that gay people have a right to marry each other. (And again, I’m not contesting that, as a moral right! I’m claiming that the legal process used to make it a legal right was completely and totally anti-democratic, and moreover lacking in checks and balances.)
But not Catholic, and Protestants have some different views on matters like contraceptives. As to SSM, unless you believe the polling is false, it also appears many Protestants AND Catholics have no object to same-sex partners marrying.
Both affect the common good and one fishes and waterfowl. More importantly the amount of contraceptives in our water supply is alarming.
Are you concerned about women?
Moreover, estrogens in the water supply may be a serious concern for human health. Environmental estrogens can cause estrogenic symptoms in men – like breast tissue growth and low libido – and can cause fertility disruption in women. Simply drinking tap water may be enough to cause this kind of disruption. Moreover, researchers at the University of Pittsburg found that human breast cancer cells grow more quickly when they are exposed to estrogen taken from catfish caught near untreated sewage overflows. http://paleoforwomen.com/is-there-birth-control-in-your-drinking-water/
But these things violate our Bill of Rights. The complaint I’m making, however, is that the Bill of Rights cannot protect ANYONE effectively if nine justices can “reinterpret” it at their whim. And that’s what Obergfell did.
But since they aren’t just doing any of this at a whim, your claim is pretty much invalid.
They are doing it at a whim.
What does it matter what their reasons are? Suppose 9 justices were to be appointed by Trump. On my view of law, they could not overturn protections in the Constitution for gay people / black people / immigrants / etc. On your view of law, they could. I prefer my view.
That the environment is being filled with medications is hardly news, and why exactly would you pick on just birth control pills and hormonal replacements (you’re going to have to ban those too)? At any rate, the fact remains that contraceptives are not going to be banned, though in the long run I suspect they’ll just become more sophisticated.’
Do you understand the point I’m making here? You’re allowed your religious objection, but at the end of the day, the majority of the society you live in disagrees with you, so while you can continue to speak your concerns, you and other more orthodox Catholics have pretty much lost the ability to set the agenda (and I’d argue, for better or for worse, Catholics in the English-speaking world lost the power to set the agenda when Edward VI made England a Protestant nation).
Their reasons matter because, well, that’s what court rulings are; they are judges, either on their own, or in the case of a superior court, often multiple judges, making a ruling. In a constitutional case, that will involve invoking previous jurisprudence to justify the ruling. It isn’t just nine people sitting in the back room, slugging back a few gin and tonics and throwing darts at a dartboard.
But this is my point. Trump’s appointees would not make rules randomly. They would make very intentional rules. But according to the logic of Roe and Obergfell and Citizens United, these rules could REVERSE existing protections for the most vulnerable.
I do agree the Catholic Church is fighting an uphill battle on issues sexual in nature. Media continuously send sexual messages to our children and have faked out several generations. We see the negative fallout. We see the high divorce rate and no fault divorce has forfeited the children the protections they once had. This was due to the “I” in most decisions, not the “other”.
Materialism has promised happiness. Now we have the high suicide rates. No heaven - no purpose. Just a gloomy future. Divine law exists and will always trump man made laws whether you believe He exists or not.
As people reason this out and not consumed by “the moment” things will turn back.
Truth always prevails in the end. Catholicism is the best way to live and has been for a long while. It is tried and true and understands the human condition very well.
Roe v Wade pretty much leans heavily on Griswold v. Connecticut, so whether you agree with the ruling or not, it wasn’t just grabbed out of thin air.
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
The ongoing “debate” to understand the human condition means there is only one answer. There are no two (or more) right answers. Human beings who are not Catholic when honestly observing life and human behavior for centuries, have come up with working solutions to deal with the good and bad within each of us. Granting novelty as a right does not help anyone. I view it as some people’s desperate attempt to change things and change some more and more until the world reflects their image and behaviors. Wrong is wrong at all times. The answer is there but some prefer to invent new “truths,” while the actual truth survives until the end of one novelty, and the next and so on. The Catholic Church is the greatest truth-telling institution in the world.
It definitely was created out of thin air.
It also specified the caveat that if in the future we know better when life begins it should be overturned. We do know it begins at conception now and it is still standing.
So rulings that cite the Constitution and previous precedent-setting rulings are concocted out of thin air? Are you atleast willing to consider the possibility that your disagreement with such rulings may be coloring your assessment of those rulings? For instance, have you actually read Obergefell v. Hodges. For a ruling concocted out of nothing, it’s 105 pages long, with a considerable number of references to previous constitutional jurisprudence.