[phil_20686]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-30, 17:42, said:

ROFLMAO

Ah, I do so enjoy your constructive comments.

[Bbradley62]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 19:14, said:

In an ideal world, yes. But in an ideal world, there would not be any other religions.

Back in the real world, we have to go through the democratic process like everyone else. If we can convince 50+% of the population that it is sinful, and therefore harmful to relationships/society, then we will be able to get a law passed.

Laws are passed by legislative bodies, not by the citizenry. So, if a majority of the New York City Council (and the mayor) were Catholic, it would be "a good thing" for them to pass such a law?
Edit: Or, maybe more relevantly, the state legislature of a small state?

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2011-June-30, 19:20

[Vampyr]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 19:15, said:

Ah, I do so enjoy your constructive comments.

Oops, didn't mean to upvote you, since you seem ungrateful for the fact that I consider your material very good. But perhaps you are serious, in which case it is even funnier!

[Vampyr]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 19:10, said:

There was a case recently of a pair of (female, identical, elderly) twins who lived together in a house they owned jointly, when one of them died the other was forced to sell their home as despite receiving everything in the will she was unable to afford the inheritance tax on her sisters half. They had previously attempted to enter into a civil partnership to avoid inheritance tax but had been refused on the grounds that it would have been incestuous. Where would the NY gay marriage law stand on issues like these?

Cases like this are really unfortunate, and the laws on inheritance tax should definitely be reformed. In another case, a man wanted to be able to leave his estate to his stepson, so they entered into a civil partnership. I think that HMRC fought this after the man's death, but I don't know the outcome.

But yes, it is totally bonkers that shared property should be subject to punitive inheritance tax. This seems to be to support the view that marriage/civil partnerships should not have available some rights that others don't have. In cases like this and the other one you mentioned, more people should have the rights; in other cases, like decreased income tax, no one should have them. Ah, if only I were king of the world...

[phil_20686]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 19:19, said:

Laws are passed by legislative bodies, not by the citizenry. So, if a majority of the New York City Council (and the mayor) were Catholic, it would be "a good thing" for them to pass such a law?
Edit: Or, maybe more relevantly, the state legislature of a small state?

This is a very interesting question, I essentially think that politicians have three potentially conflicting duties in these cases: Firstly to their own conscience, not to vote for anything which they find immoral. Secondly to their constituents, not to pass controversial legislation without due public consultation, and thirdly to the state as whole only to pass those bills which are in the best interests of the state.

How you would weigh up these factors in an individual case is obviously up to the individual. My own personal opinion is that for an evil as grave as abortion or euthanasia, a catholic legislator would be obliged to vote against it regardless of the public. For something less serious like contraception I would tend to give more weight to the opinion of the people, especially given that doing these things against the will of the people normally results in getting voted out at the next election, and if it is certain that the bill will be overturned at the next election there is not that much point in passing it.

[Bbradley62]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 18:44, said:

And the `catholic' governor has now been excommunicated for that.

The catholic church opposes gay marriage because it opposes the ideas inherent within it, which is that all sexual relationships are morally acceptable. As it also opposes pre- and extra- marital sex, promiscuity, adultery, contraception and abortion, for all these things are contrary to the authentic flourishing of humanity. Part of the churches mission is to preach the truth about humanity and sin.

I can't find any reports that Andrew Cuomo has been excommunicated. Do you have that reference? Of course, he, his father, and many other Catholic politicians have often been rumored to be excommunicated due to their against-Church-teaching actions and beliefs.

So, all pre- and extra-marital sex should be illegal? Good luck with that.

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 19:52, said:

So, all pre- and extra-marital sex should be illegal?

No. Apparently each individual Catholic decides which of the church's teachings should be enforced by law.

In my many years of Catholic education I was taught that missing Mass on a Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation was a mortal sin. Since this affects everyone, not only the several percent of people that are gay and wish to get married, I think that this is a lot more important for the good of humanity and that Catholics should concentrate on this issue and not worry about any others until Mass attendance is mandated by law.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-30, 18:11, said:

Why, Bill? Why do you think that people who have chosen to get "married" or "unioned" should receive subsidies from the rest of the population, who have not done that?

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 18:24, said:

I didn't come near the question of subsidies. I simply said that people should be able to declare "this is my life partner", regardless of whether that declaration is in a religious or civil setting, and regardless of the genders of the declarants. There are many benefits that arise from this that are not subsidies, including such things as hospital/jail visitation rights, end-of-life decision-making, etc.

Vampyr, on 2011-June-30, 19:08, said:

Fair enough. I think that most couples do get married/unioned/civil parnershipped in order to make that public and binding declaration.

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 19:10, said:

I have never understood this arguments. It seems like saying "we should have gay marriage because we are too lazy to draft properly non-discriminatory laws" Ignoring the fact that there are often other classes of people who suffer from these laws. For example, there was a case in the UK of two men who lived together in a non-sexual partnership as bachelors, and had done for nigh on twenty years, but when the other was injured in a car accident he was refused visiting rights in hospital. Is that not equally unjust? It seems to me that people should be able to create a list of non-family members who they wish to give visiting rights to to be kept with their medical records. That seems like a fair and equitable solution.

Bonus questions for the panel: The wording of the UK statue for civil unions states that the relationship must contain a sexual component. This is to discourage, say, buisness partners from entering into civil partnerships to avoid tax laws (since interpersonal transfers are exempt from every kind of tax within a marriage). There was a case recently of a pair of (female, identical, elderly) twins who lived together in a house they owned jointly, when one of them died the other was forced to sell their home as despite receiving everything in the will she was unable to afford the inheritance tax on her sisters half. They had previously attempted to enter into a civil partnership to avoid inheritance tax but had been refused on the grounds that it would have been incestuous. Where would the NY gay marriage law stand on issues like these?

My post about visitation, etc., was in response to Stephanie's question about why I supposedly thought single people should subsidize married/partner people; my statement was simply supposed to demonstrate that the question of marriage was not the same as the question of subsidies.

The bonus answer: The new NY law simply says that gender is not a factor in determining who does or doesn't qualify for a marriage license. It does not change anything else, such as requirements of age, relationship of the individuals, etc.

[phil_20686]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 19:52, said:

I can't find any reports that Andrew Cuomo has been excommunicated. Do you have that reference? Of course, he, his father, and many other Catholic politicians have often been rumored to be excommunicated due to their against-Church-teaching actions and beliefs.

So, all pre- and extra-marital sex should be illegal? Good luck with that.

The bishop of Brooklyn (DiMarzio) said "In light of these disturbing developments and in protest for this decision, I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation. Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration."

Which I interpreted (possibly erroneously) to include the celebration of mass. Further, under cannon law publicly and deliberately dissenting from church teaching on a serious matter carries with it the automatic penalty of excommunication without the bishops needing to do anything. You can read one canon lawyers take on it here

It is neither necessary nor desirable that everything that is sinful should be made illegal, and I did not mean to suggest that. Some sins are more serious than others, and certainly the state should make illegal those activities that only act as temptation like strip clubs and prostitution and gambling. But the state also should not be in the business of punishing every human failing.

[Bbradley62]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 20:11, said:

The bishop of Brooklyn (DiMarzio) said "In light of these disturbing developments and in protest for this decision, I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation. Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration."

Which I interpreted (possibly erroneously) to include the celebration of mass. Further, under cannon law publicly and deliberately dissenting from church teaching on a serious matter carries with it the automatic penalty of excommunication without the bishops needing to do anything. You can read one canon lawyers take on it here

It is neither necessary nor desirable that everything that is sinful should be made illegal, and I did not mean to suggest that. Some sins are more serious than others, and certainly the state should make illegal those activities that only act as temptation like strip clubs and prostitution and gambling. But the state also should not be in the business of punishing every human failing.

I think you have significantly overstated the weight of the bishop's statement.

So: same-sex marriage, strip clubs, prostitution and gambling are out... It's always interesting to see where religious-types draw the lines.

Edit: and don't even get me started about the silliness of auto-excommunication...

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2011-June-30, 20:26

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 18:44, said:

And the `catholic' governor has now been excommunicated for that.

Really? Since when?

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 18:44, said:

Indeed, I think we all agree that in a democracy neither individuals nor institutions should be silent in the face of that which they perceive to be erroneous or unjust.

Yes, everyone has the right to speak up and to advocate his or her beliefs.

But the government should not be forcing those beliefs on those who hold different views. Surely granting a gay couple the right to marry does not damage anyone else's marriage. The only "harm" is that society steps in a direction that some believe wrong (as you said), while others believe the direction right.

No one has lost the right to try to convince others of their position: just not to impose it by law.

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 18:07, said:

As a regular viewer of The O'Reilly Factor, I am confident that Bill O'Reilly (representing the "marriage is a sacrament" position) and I would agree on the following arrangement:
The government should not issue marriage licenses; the government should issue civil union licenses (or whatever more poetic term you'd like to use). These civil union licenses should be issued to anyone whose union was proclaimed by a civil servant (justice of the peace, ship's captain, etc.) as well as anyone married in a religious ceremony. All federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations that now refer to "married" should uniformly be changed to "unioned".

Dare I suggest that a contract between two (or more) consenting adults is the business neither of organized religion, nor of the government (except insofar as the courts may be called on to arbitrate disputes involving such contracts)? Perhaps all federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations that now refer to "married" should simply be repealed.

[Vampyr]

There is so much misery, strife and hatred in this world. I don't understand why anyone would wish to worship a god who isn't pleased when his or her children find love and companionship.

[blackshoe]

It's been my observation that religions generally only make sense to their particular adherents.

[BunnyGo]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 19:10, said:

I have never understood this arguments. It seems like saying "we should have gay marriage because we are too lazy to draft properly non-discriminatory laws" Ignoring the fact that there are often other classes of people who suffer from these laws. For example, there was a case in the UK of two men who lived together in a non-sexual partnership as bachelors, and had done for nigh on twenty years, but when the other was injured in a car accident he was refused visiting rights in hospital. Is that not equally unjust? It seems to me that people should be able to create a list of non-family members who they wish to give visiting rights to to be kept with their medical records. That seems like a fair and equitable solution.


Bonus questions for the panel: The wording of the UK statue for civil unions states that the relationship must contain a sexual component. This is to discourage, say, buisness partners from entering into civil partnerships to avoid tax laws (since interpersonal transfers are exempt from every kind of tax within a marriage). There was a case recently of a pair of (female, identical, elderly) twins who lived together in a house they owned jointly, when one of them died the other was forced to sell their home as despite receiving everything in the will she was unable to afford the inheritance tax on her sisters half. They had previously attempted to enter into a civil partnership to avoid inheritance tax but had been refused on the grounds that it would have been incestuous. Where would the NY gay marriage law stand on issues like these?

Based on all of your writing it strikes me that you have a two clear positions:

1) Marriage is sacred and should be defined as by the Church.

2) It is acceptable (and even desirable) to have legal protections in a secular state (like the USA) where homosexuals can have legal recognitions and protections of their unions. These protections can (and should) be equal to the legal protections of marriage.

It strikes me that your whole problem then (based on these positions that I've gleaned from your previous writings) is a conflation of civil and religious ceremony. I was married last summer. For health care reasons, my spouse and I nearly had a civil ceremony a year prior (it ended up not being necessary). However, I would not have been married in the eyes of my religion, and I would not have considered myself married in any religious sense. This word "marriage" is overloaded, and I think any *serious* religious argument should realize this fact--furthermore unlike what Mr. O'Reily suggests, it should not be necessary to unwind the word (simpler for the simple minded...but hardly necessary). There are millions of people (like me for example) whom the Catholic Church would not considered "married" but the State would. See....these are two different concepts that magically use the same word. There are lots of other examples of this in the English language (and in Law--both religious and civil) where words are overloaded. It should not cause this much confusion.

If however, you have misrepresented (or I have misread) your position, then I think you are quite wrong. The State need not pay any heed to any one religion. Otherwise, I'd still not be married (nor would I ever be).

In short, "marriage" in the eyes of the US gov't and "marriage" in the eyes of any religion *ARE* different. Furthermore, as the US gov't is not beholden to any religion (thankfully, as no two religions would be able to agree on what it is otherwise) the legal and civil protections you suggest are provided by the gov't in something called "marriage" that is amazingly *not* a Catholic marriage.

Sincerely,

Ben

I edited to put in the quotes whereby I surmised these two positions that I ascribed to you:

phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 19:10, said:

I have never understood this arguments. It seems like saying "we should have gay marriage because we are too lazy to draft properly non-discriminatory laws" Ignoring the fact that there are often other classes of people who suffer from these laws. For example, there was a case in the UK of two men who lived together in a non-sexual partnership as bachelors, and had done for nigh on twenty years, but when the other was injured in a car accident he was refused visiting rights in hospital. Is that not equally unjust? It seems to me that people should be able to create a list of non-family members who they wish to give visiting rights to to be kept with their medical records. That seems like a fair and equitable solution.

I read this as saying that you think the State *should* give some amount of civil rights (perhaps even ALL the civil rights) to two people living together that are not religiously married. This is called marriage. The case you present is called "common law marriage" in states like New York now (previously a man and woman living together for 7+ years would be married in the eyes of the State for various legal purposes...this now would also apply to two men living together).

phil_20686 said:

Certainly, if you like, solutions like Germany are possible where you have your civil marriage and then you go to the church for your "actual" marriage. It is an incumbent moral duty on the state to recognise marriage as one of the building blocks of society. Moreover, even if you go in for separation in an extreme way and take up the German solution of civil marriage being totally separate from religious marriage, it does not follow that marriage should therefore not be economically subsidised. Germany subsidises marriage the most of any euro zone country I believe.

This seems to be *exactly* my statement with the brilliantly added words "civil" and "actual" to the word "marriage" to help people realize that these are different. Amazing.

[Bbradley62]

phil_20686 said:

BunnyGo, on 2011-June-30, 22:42, said:

Based on all of your writing it strikes me that you have a two clear positions:1) Marriage is sacred and should be defined as by the Church.2) It is acceptable (and even desirable) to have legal protections in a secular state (like the USA) where homosexuals can have legal recognitions and protections of their unions. These protections can (and should) be equal to the legal protections of marriage.

... furthermore unlike what Mr. O'Reily suggests, ...

Ben: It was me who made the O'Reilly reference. I think the Catholic Church's position is still that we're going to burn in Hell.

[BunnyGo]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-30, 23:16, said:

Ben: It was me who made the O'Reilly reference. I think the Catholic Church's position is still that we're going to burn in Hell.

I realized that someone else had made the O'Reilly reference (didn't realize I'd misspelled the name), but I thought it was appropriate to address it, since it was directly related to what I was saying (same concept of conflation of two things, different solution).

And yes, based on Dante (*not* a Catholic reference, but somehow became at least popular doctrine for Hell--which is amusing as it was intended as a political smear against everyone he didn't like) I think my religion alone gets me to the 7th level.

[helene_t]

I can understand if people opposed to gay relationships want bisexual people to prefer opposite-sex partners.

What I can't understand is why anyone would be against that a same-sex couple who has chosen to live together (the law can't do anything about that) and maybe has the blessing of their church already (the law can't do anything about that either) have their relationship recognized by the law. This boils down to "it is better for gay couples to live together without being legally married". But I have never heard an argument for that.

Maybe the idea is that by discriminating against gays we can coerce them into straight relationships ....

[blackshoe]

Rights. Rights are something held inherently by individuals. They are not something given us by the government. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quote

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -- United States Constitution, Ninth Amendment

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2011-July-01, 02:38, said:

Maybe the idea is that by discriminating against gays we can coerce them into straight relationships ....

You raise a very interesting question: what is the "point" of discrimination? But usually there just isn't one. After all, I don't think the Catholic Church think that they can somehow transform the objects of their discrimination. After all, they hardly expect all women to suddenly turn into men.