Why is everone making a fuss about gay marriage?

Post Reply New Topic

Far as I can tell, the issue over same-sex marriage, in america at least, includes ideas of family, if someone is married, they are each other's next-of-kin, which becomes important with things like shared insurance, hospital visiting rights, inheritance and various other legal and contractual matters that separate a formal marriage from a friendship or housemate or anything else like that.

And why should your view of natural law and God's law exercise any control over those who do not share your interpretation?

Homosexuality exists in nature, but marriage does not. If there is anything, then, that goes against natural law, it is the institution of marriage, itself.

As for the law of God, there are plenty of views about what the law of God actually says. Until we have a singular, definitive statement about the applicable law of God, it seems to me presumptuous of you to attempt to bind people who neither adhere to, nor believe in the law of God to your particular interpretation of it.

If you believe same sex marriage violates God's law, then I encourage you not to marry a member of your own sex. But do not attempt to impose your views in order to take away the liberty of your fellow citizens for whom God's law has no meaning.

Because Congress is run by homophobic narrow-minded bible thumping republicans( not all republicans are like this mind you) for the most part. this is coming from a former repulican but now a moderate! In between democrat and republican!

It's just struck me that that would leave an awful lot of people disenfranchised and without a natural political home.

Imagine a system with just the Tories and Labour and no other parties. Nightmare.

Gravity is a natural law. If you can do something and people are doing it since thousend of years, then it cant be against a natural law. Because a natural law is something that cant be undone. You are right that no man made law can ever trump a natural law, so you can create a law that gravity on earth should work in the opposite direction, but as you already know: It doesnt work, because human laws have no influence on natural laws.

What the catholic church says and what your personal gods laws says, you can discuss with the members of your religion, but as long as we have freedom of religion, thats the only place where religious believings do care. Among the people that agree in your believes. Do you avoid pig flesh, because jews and muslims do, according to their religion? I think no. So why should someone else stop doing something, because its against your personal religion? Are you superman or the king of the world and your believes are worth more than those of others, and you should be free to decide if you want to respect someone elses religion or not, while others shall be forced to respect yours?

So if a church wants to marry people, its their desicion. They have to think about if a marriage fits into their religion or not. I dont have any problems with religions, that dont want to marry homosexuals in the name of their church by their priests. But the legal marriage has nothing to do with any god.

This is exactly how I feel about it. If a church doesn't believe in gay marriage they should have the right to withhold their blessing. But the government should have marriage regardless of gender, race or creed.

Last edited by trollcatman on 04 Apr 2013, 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just to have some input, homosexuals were never "banned" from marriage- they were just never included in this institution...

I beg to differ. There are numerous situations--dating back to Constantine, where government has specifically defined marriage in order to exclude same sex couples. Same sex couples have sought permission to marry, either by application or through litigation, and until the beginning of this century were routinely rebuffed.

That's not an error of omission. That's actively excluding.

Okay, when a Catholic talks about Natural Law, they are not talking about "what happens in nature", but rather "what humans are meant to do". This comes from the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, who laid down five Primary Precepts that people must do to be moral: preserve life, educate the young, reproduce, live in an ordered society, and worship God. Aquinas derived these ideas from Aristotle, particularly Aristotle's theory of Cause. He also talked about sex at considerable length. The purpose of sex (according to Aquinas) is to unite couples, produce pleasure for all participants, and lead to reproduction. A sexual act must fulfil all three of those purposes in order to be moral. Homosexual sex can never lead to reproduction, so, under Natural Law, it is immoral.

There are many obvious holes in that theory. Pick at those holes rather than arguing on the grounds of a misunderstanding of what is meant by "natural".

Ditto.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Aren't we jumping to a conclusion about what DarkRain might or might not have been intending in his reference to "natural law" (no capitals)? "Natural law," is as much subject to subjective interpretation as "God's Law."

But let's assume for the moment that he is taking an Aquinian view of Natural Law. That does not invalidate my argument. He must still confront the fact that Nature doesn't conform to that Aquinian view. To refer to it as "natural law," is fundamentally mendacious, because it is not in the least natural. It is completely artificial in four of its five primary precepts, and somewhat artificial in the last. (A significant number of Roman Catholics, after all, violate the precept of reproduction by taking vows of chastity when taking Holy Orders).

I think it is a fair assumption that someone who complains about homosexuality not being natural is talking about Aquinas, yes, even if they don't realise it. He's had a massive effect on Catholic theology, and by extension Western religion. When challenged (on the grounds that homosexuality exists in nature), most religious people will generally revise "not natural" to "not how God designed things to be" or similar, showing that they have at least some appreciation of the philosophy. Additionally, DarkRain referenced "God's law", another aspect of law in Thomism (Aquinas calls it "Eternal Law"), further increasing the chances (s)he was referencing Aquinian Natural Law.

But yes, calling it "Natural Law" is misleading- Aquinas thought that Eternal Law was accessible to the rational being, but only to an extent, and this extent was Natural Law. I believe he maintained that all humans partook in the Five Precepts to some degree, although he himself was celibate...

(Apologies if my explanation of Natural Law was patronising- I thought it better to explain it and you feel patronised than for you or anyone else to not understand my reference)

No apologies necessary--your explanation was not in the least patronising.

Absent a statement from DarkRain, and don't think it's a fair assumption. The term "unnatural" has been used as a descriptor for homosexuality by numerous commentators who have not been inspired by Aquinas. But I'm not sure that this is particularly relevant to the issue at hand. Whether we are talking about God's Law, Natural Law, Eternal Law, or plain, old fashioned distaste, we are always dealing with something that is subjective, and devoid of any empirical foundation.

The civil law must apply universally to all people, regardless of faith, belief, creed or lack thereof. While I have the utmost respect for people who choose to govern their own lives by the guidance of their beliefs, I have nothing both contempt for those who would seek to establish civil law in a fashion that imposes a set of beliefs on a subject.

The marriage of two people of the same sex imposes nothing on the person who believes that homosexuality is sinful. That person is free to continue in that belief, and free to abide by that belief. But prohibiting the marriage of two people of the same sex is an imposition on those two people--and that is where faith must subordinate itself to the universal application of the law.

maybe because the act is only being introduced in england and wales and notother parts of the u.k

still, when you function on the basis that one moral act fits all, there will be some repercussions in some places.

This most certainly would happen. Just look what happened when we legalized interracial marriage. All humans are one skin color now. Interracial marriage eliminated all the races.

My oldest friend, who returned to Washington state after spending years in Arizona, believes there's a media conspiracy to make everyone brown by interracial marriage. Yes, he's insane.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer