Same Sex Marriage from Conservative buddy thread... (Page 5)

 That's a beautiful phrase you wrote, but it doesn't mean anything (to me...)  Maybe quote for us, since at least two of us aren't seeing that beauty

Man, I didn't even see this thread until just now.  Looks like its all been said, but I do want to add something.

It seems to me that a "Christian Virtue" is love.  Two people, dedicating their lives to one another, standing in front of the people they care about, professing their love and commitment to stay together for eternity is a beautiful and wondrous thing.  I see this as a fight against love, which is both to be both deeply troubling and a perversion of the true teachings of the Bible.  

To put it another way, Christ did not die on the cross so that some could eventually lead the charge against the ultimate expression of love between two people, their committment to each other for eternity. 

I gotta ask, what would Jesus really do here?  Seems to me that he'd be in favor of the love thing over the second-class citizen thing.  Of course, I'm an atheist, so what do I know?

Natural law refers to moral principles that we ought to live by. It's the philosophical foundation our country was founded upon.

It does not derive from biological or material phenomenon. So the fact that you can procreate without two people remaining together throughout life does not prove your point. What a person "ought" to do is not dependent and what a person actually has done.

For example, people murder and always have murdered. That's a natural phenomenon. It doesn't follow though to a conclusion that a person ought to murder. The principle instead is that a person ought not to murder. That is true even though there is plenty of evidence that people murder.

You could however change the question to, "ought a man and woman marry for life" and then find the answer in natural law.

Your defition for natural law is one which you choose to follow, it is not the definition that I know, or the one defined by dictionaries and other sources such as encyclopedias. The morality spin is maybe based on a theological view of natural law?

wikipedia states: Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere

Dictionary states: n.

A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.

So it seems that we agree that there is truth.

I propose that we come to know this truth through reason. You seem to be saying that we come to know it through our feelings, what I would call our emotions.

Why is that true? Why do our emotions show us the way to truth. What if two people have different emotions around a question, in that case which one of them is correct? 

You see a universal truth based in natural law.  For some reason, that natural law seems like logic to you, but to me it does not.  It does not seem logical at all.  So how else do we choose what we believe.  How do you know that the bible is correct?  Do you see it as the logical choice, or do you feel it somewhere in yourself that it is the truth?  You have not showed anywhere that there is logic and reason involved in taking away my marriage to my partner.  When you strip down, why you believe something and I believe differently, you can say reason and logic and natural law, but only because you FEEL these are correct...they are still just theories. 

For myself, living the truth regarding how I participate in a collective society means striving to live according to certain principles that govern how we ought to treat one another. So around the gay marriage question, one that comes quickly to mind is about violence. It's a true principle that I may not commit a violent act in order to advance my political opinions in this matter.

Instead, what we're doing here on this board illustrates how we should go forward, namely engaging in civil discourse and trying to advance our positions through reason as best we can.

That's one example.

As far as what I'd suggest you'd do, one thing is to work toward enacting civil law that would ensure certain rights such as property contracts and health care rights like hospital visitations that is not rooted in the concept that the two or more persons entering into these contracts must have a sexual relationship. These changes in contracts and law must be applied to every type of relationship, such as a two sisters or an aunt and nephew. But they can't be seen as supporting any type of sexual relationship outside of that between one man and one woman.

We can find compromise in that.

Why should I compromise that.  I already basically have what you describe...there are somethings extra I get if the government sees my relationship as a marriage, but on the most part it doesn't give me anything more than I have.  That being said, would you compromise to allow marriages to only be performed in a church...and all couples, straight or gay would need to have a civil union to be recognised by the government.  If your church didn't want to recognise my marriage, they wouldn't have to, but the state would need to recognise it.  Which is basically what you said above, but in an earlier post, you said that this would undermind society because it would be a law based outside of natural law.  So why does the word "marriage" mean so much to you?

A second thing is to stop attacking traditional marriage between one man and one woman. For example, one attack is changes in law that require as a default in birth certificates the terms "Progenitor A and Progenitor B", instead of the terms "Mother and Father". The push for that is rightly seen as an attack on traditional marriage.

You see them as attacks...but no one sets out to attack anything.  People set out to change what they feel is an injustice.  It is the retaliation from that change that is truely the attack.  For example, Gay Marriage proponents, did not set out to upset anyone, we just want to live our lives with equality and dignity.  But the oponents, retaliate with true hate towards us.  We do nothing conciously to affect them, but they are conciously trying to affect my life.  That is an attack.  No one says, "I think I will go out and attack traditional marriage", but I hear people say, "Gay marriage should exist for.....(any number of reasons). 

As for the example above, I am not sure I would use those terms...maybe parent 1 and parent 2, it is a small change that is not an attack on traditional marriage, but a way of acknowledging that there are different types of families out there.  I can't really talk about this point, since this is the first I have heard of them changing that on a birth certificate.  I know on the forms at the YMCA where I work, they no longer ask for "mother and father" names...but parent or guardian 1 and parent or gaurdian 2.  This was to show diversity and compassion for those people who are in an alternative family.  No one asked them to change it by the way.  There were several alternative families who had joined the Y, they saw forms that no longer fit their demographic and changed them.  No one complained after they did the change. 

And lastly, stop trying to change the definition of what marriage is. It's true that marriage ought to contain within it the committed  love of two people, but it's more than that as well. There are all kinds of relationships that contain committed love, for example between two brothers and two sisters, but we don't call them marriages.

If you feel that the true definition of marriage has more to do with your definition of natural law, then with love, great.  See my above comment, you have the right to believe that, so marriage should only be performed in a church and only recognised by the church.  To get the governemnt to recognise your union, you would need to have the same civil papers I get.  That way, I am not trying to change YOUR definition of marriage, but I get the same right as all people.

If you insist that gay sex changes the equation and constitutes a marriage in this case, then among other things you need to show why it should be limited to only two persons and not more than two persons. Often people duck this question, but it is an essential one in coming to know what a marriage truly is.

I will not duck the question...but I don't know the answer, I honestly think that sex has little to do with marriage.  I know of people who got married and were never able to have sex in a normal way?  But they love each other as husband and wife.  Their marriage is no less sanctified than yours or mine.  I will say, that I do not believe marriage needs to be between only two individuals...I have known many many people in lasting polyamorous relationships.  both gay and straight.   I don't know how the state would define a polyamorous marriage tho, since one of the main reasons civil marriages were created was for the passing down of property (as has been stated in an earlier thread).

If those things happen, then I think we've found common ground.

Not really, you would still be asking me to live a "seperate, but equal" type of life, which I have already expressed is a fallacy.  It may make you feel better, but it still puts me at a place lower than you, both in the eyes of men and in the eyes of the law.  The only common ground, would be if marriage was completely taken out of government control...and civil unions became the norm.  And a religious body handled marriages.

So is that true? Is it true that there is more than one truth? 

Or is it true that there is only one truth, that truth being that there is more than one truth?

Either way, we're in agreement that there is something called truth. The only difference is in coming to know what that truth is. So you can't simply dismiss what I'm saying by claiming that there is more than one truth. You need to show what those other truths are and then defend that belief, and given how this thread started you need to defend it with a non-religious and non-emotional argument.

Natural law refers to moral principles that we ought to live by. It's the philosophical foundation our country was founded upon.

No, that's not what he's doing. Look for the beauty in the midst of the dry language. 

And we know what Jesus would say around this issue. Jesus instituted the sacrament of marriage. The early Christians celebrated this sacrament.

It was never thought to be only a contract between two persons who love each other. Rather, it was always thought to be a covenant that incorporated, meaning that it brought together bodily, the total free giving mutual self donation of a man and a woman, mindfully, bodily, and spiritually. This type of bodily incorporation can only biologically take place between one man and one woman.

That's what Jesus would say, because that's what He did say as show by how His disciples organized their culture.

I think there's confusion here in the terms "nature" and "natural" regarding how they apply to natural law.

Thanks for all the great responses everyone.

I'll answer all the questions and objections put to me. Right now, I'm going to head out and vote. So let me just put this out there for now.

First, I concede that I haven't yet fully made the case yet of defending a non-religious argument in support of marrige only being between one man and one woman. I put the essence of the argument out there, but the burden is on me to fully expand on it so that it becomes clearer.

I'll do that, but it will take some time and some back and forth. 

Second, a couple related themes keeps popping up in many responses, that being whether or not truth exists, and whether someone has the right to impose moral judgements on others.

These are two premises upon which the other argument rests. So it's necessary to get into a defense of these two as well.

I say that first, truth exists, and second, that we have the right to make moral judgments.

In the first case of truth, it's clear that if someone says that "you have your truth and I have my truth", they are making an appeal to a universal truth, that being that there is no truth.

You can't have it both ways. Either truth exists, even if the only universal truth is that there is no truth, or it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then you can't claim that you have your truth and I have my truth. 

Second is this issue of moral judgements. To say that one has no right to make a moral judgement is itself a moral judgement. Again you can't have it both ways. If we don't have the right to make a moral judgement, then you can't claim that we ought not make moral judgements.

I say that first, truth exists, and second, that we have the right to make moral judgments.

In the first case of truth, it's clear that if someone says that "you have your truth and I have my truth", they are making an appeal to a universal truth, that being that there is no truth.

You can't have it both ways. Either truth exists, even if the only universal truth is that there is no truth, or it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then you can't claim that you have your truth and I have my truth. 

Please tell me, how is this not the same?

Ok, re-read. Looked for beauty. Found it.

You see a universal truth based in natural law.  For some reason, that natural law seems like logic to you, but to me it does not.  It does not seem logical at all.  So how else do we choose what we believe.  How do you know that the bible is correct?  Do you see it as the logical choice, or do you feel it somewhere in yourself that it is the truth?  You have not showed anywhere that there is logic and reason involved in taking away my marriage to my partner.  When you strip down, why you believe something and I believe differently, you can say reason and logic and natural law, but only because you FEEL these are correct...they are still just theories.

That being said, would you compromise to allow marriages to only be performed in a church...and all couples, straight or gay would need to have a civil union to be recognised by the government.

You see them as attacks...but no one sets out to attack anything.

I will not duck the question...but I don't know the answer,

It may make you feel better

Sorry. Don't see it. 

You just did it again in your previous question. You suggest a compromise in which a man and woman enters into a "civil union" recognized by the government instead of entering into a "marriage" recognized by the government.

You're attempting to make marriage a private matter, and it's not.

That's an attack on the institution.