Can we really legalize morality?

Resa77 · March 2013

I read about 15-20 pages of the one you posted, Newly, and I read part 1 of the one you posted, Caitriona. I actually tried to read the second and third parts, but the page kept freezing when it was loading, so I wasn't able to. Darn computer! I will try to finish them soon though.

The thing that was frustrating about both of these sources, though, was that they made statements as though they were infallibly true, and didn't really back them up. The rest of the argument was based largely on these statements, and so the rest of the argument was easily refuted since the first part couldn't be "proven" (or at least, wasn't proven). I even re-read them in a quiet setting so I could make sure I paid full attention, and still I saw gaps in the explanation.

For instance, Dr. Morse makes her argument by saying that marriage is what defines parenthood, and that is a great part of its utility in society. She uses the example that the husband is the presumed father of his wife's children. Yeah, that's true...and the boyfriend is the presumed father of his girlfriend's child. So that's not a marriage thing, that's a relationship thing. When two peope are in a public, romantic relationship, and the woman becomes pregnant, her sig other is the presumed father, whether or not they're married. Furthermore, I don't assume that a husband is the father of his all his wife's children, unless I know how long they've been married. Especially if there is a gap between an older child and the younger children, I often assume (correctly) that the older child is from one spouse's previous marriage, or that one of the spouses had a child out of wedlock.

Not trying to beat this to death at all! I am just trying to reading these the way I imagine a pro-gay, secular person would, so I'm being quite critical.

agapecarrie · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:afd4232f-e920-4624-9f64-9647f7fbb517">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can we really legalize morality? : I learned more about my beauty, dignity and self-worth from the affection and delight of my gay uncle toward me than I did from my mother. I don't think that I'd be less adjusted if I'd had my dad and uncle as my parents. I'd probably actually be better adjusted.
Posted by ahstillwell[/QUOTE]

<div>You proved my point. </div>

Calypso1977 · March 2013

Exactly. While the uncle is gay he's still a man.

thejucheidea · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:a5f1ec3e-79f2-4486-9fec-5c65e95e9e9d">Re:Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]Exactly. While the uncle is gay he's still a man.
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

Then what exactly would I learn from my female mother? Why not have two men who love me dearly as their daughter? What about a male child brought up by lesbians? Why can't he learn love and affection toward females by watching his mothers love each other? I don't understand why two sexes have to be involved in the teaching of love and self-worth.

agapecarrie · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:869dac31-a29d-42b5-b19f-81b3f79720c6">Re:Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re:Can we really legalize morality? : Then what exactly would I learn from my female mother? Why not have two men who love me dearly as their daughter? What about a male child brought up by lesbians? Why can't he learn love and affection toward females by watching his mothers love each other? I don't understand why two sexes have to be involved in the teaching of love and self-worth.
Posted by ahstillwell[/QUOTE]

I already said both men and women have specific things passed on to their children. BOTH are important and both are indispensible.

<div><span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">It's not just simple"teaching". It's inherrent understanding. It's the essence of it all.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">
</span></div><div><span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">This is also basic psychology-- not just a religious understanding. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">
</span></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

CrazyCatLady3 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:87203ee5-f67a-4235-89e2-9e91045d869f">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can we really legalize morality? : I'll post this again since it got lost on the first page. It's 43 pages, but with an issue this complex... you need at least that much. It is the best explanation I've found... <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155" rel="nofollow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155</a> If you'd like any more links, discussions or articles... I have about 15 (very disorganized) pages worth on a google document that I could share with you if you're interested.
Posted by newlyseliski[/QUOTE]

<div>I read through this and I think their argument breaks down when they try to explain away why infertile, heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry (because they make such a big deal about heterosexual marriage being the only natural way to produce/rear children). They basically say, well infertile couples should still be allowed to marry because they can serve as a "good example" of marriage (with the sole criteria of them serving as a good example being opposite-sex). I think a loving, committed gay couple would be a better example of marriage than an infertile (or fertile, for that matter) hetero couple that doesn't respect each other, cheats, etc. etc.
</div>

CrazyCatLady3 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:d62492fa-eb5d-44c7-bee8-677cd9b1dd6a">Re:Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re:Can we really legalize morality? : I already said both men and women have specific things passed on to their children. BOTH are important and both are indispensible. It's not just simple"teaching". It's inherrent understanding. It's the essence of it all. This is also basic psychology-- not just a religious understanding.
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

<div>Where is the empirical evidence that female children raised by lesbian couples lack self-worth, a sense of beauty, etc.?</div>

monkeysip · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:763ab752-c1e4-414e-a0ce-77bbe209996c">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can we really legalize morality? : I read through this and I think their argument breaks down when they try to explain away why infertile, heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry (because they make such a big deal about heterosexual marriage being the only natural way to produce/rear children). They basically say, well infertile couples should still be allowed to marry because they can serve as a "good example" of marriage (with the sole criteria of them serving as a good example being opposite-sex). I think a loving, committed gay couple would be a better example of marriage than an infertile (or fertile, for that matter) hetero couple that doesn't respect each other, cheats, etc. etc.
Posted by CrazyCatLady3[/QUOTE]

No, it's because an infertile couple can have the nuptial union of soul and body. Just because a man or woman's reproductive faculties are not resulting in a child does not mean they have now lost their nature of man and woman. He's still a man, she's still a woman, and the nature of their actions together are still the same as that of a couple without infertility issues. They can still engage in the marital act (sex). Their relationship is still fruitful, if no biological children actually result. To put it bluntly, "sex" between the the same sexes is not actually "sex". It is not actually intercourse, or the marital act. It is something else that we relate to sex because it may end up in an orgasm, but it is not two bodies becoming one, with the giving and receiving actions of the marital union.

All of this requires a much deeper look at the meaning of our bodies. In our modern society, the body is meaningless. It is a utilitarian possession of ours. We own it and use it for our own purposes.

Catholics, and even many other societies of old, didn't view the body that way (it all really started with the Cartesian dualism of Renee Descartes). You WERE your body, and what you did with your body had meaning. That's why the sexual act is so important and symbolic.

chelseamb11 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:2dfbb447-a0f6-4108-9f90-5978112a08ee">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can we really legalize morality? : No, it's because an infertile couple can have the nuptial union of soul and body. Just because a man or woman's reproductive faculties are not resulting in a child does not mean they have now lost their nature of man and woman. He's still a man, she's still a woman, and the nature of their actions together are still the same as that of a couple without infertility issues. They can still engage in the marital act (sex). Their relationship is still fruitful, if no biological children actually result. To put it bluntly, "sex" between the the same sexes is not actually "sex". It is not actually intercourse, or the marital act. It is something else that we relate to sex because it may end up in an orgasm, but it is not two bodies becoming one, with the giving and receiving actions of the marital union. All of this requires a much deeper look at the meaning of our bodies. In our modern society, the body is meaningless. It is a utilitarian possession of ours. We own it and use it for our own purposes. Catholics, and even many other societies of old, didn't view the body that way (it all really started with the Cartesian dualism of Renee Descartes). You WERE your body, and what you did with your body had meaning. That's why the sexual act is so important and symbolic.
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

Exactly. For anyone who is curious and hasn't read it, I highly recommend "The Good News About Sex and Marriage" by Christopher West. It outlines/explains this concept beautifully.

caitriona87 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:7db26b8a-5d82-4cdc-a657-724be824f497">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE] For instance, Dr. Morse makes her argument by saying that marriage is what defines parenthood, and that is a great part of its utility in society. She uses the example that the husband is the presumed father of his wife's children. Yeah, that's true...and the boyfriend is the presumed father of his girlfriend's child. So that's not a marriage thing, that's a relationship thing. When two peope are in a public, romantic relationship, and the woman becomes pregnant, her sig other is the presumed father, whether or not they're married. Furthermore, I don't assume that a husband is the father of his all his wife's children, unless I know how long they've been married. Especially if there is a gap between an older child and the younger children, I often assume (correctly) that the older child is from one spouse's previous marriage, or that one of the spouses had a child out of wedlock. Not trying to beat this to death at all! I am just trying to reading these the way I imagine a pro-gay, secular person would, so I'm being quite critical.
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

No, that's a fruitful exercise of course.

I don't think Dr. Morse is talking about people's assumptions when she says "presumed" parenthood. She's speaking legally.

If a woman is married, her husband's name goes on the birth certificate, period. He is the legal father regardless of who the biological father is. It's not just a social presumption but a legal one, and this is a part of the purpose that marriage serves. An unmarried woman can give any man's name or none as the father, so there is not the same presumption of paternity (again, legally speaking...yeah, her family & friends probably assume her boyfriend is the father if there is one. But that doesn't serve the same legal, civil purpose.)

In light of that it simply doesn't make sense for two men or two women since there can be no children born <em>of that union</em>. If there are children, there is also a third party/biological parent involved somewhere, a relationship with whom is denied to the child in favor of the adults' desires.

Resa77 · March 2013

You make some good points, Caitriona. However, I know situations where a woman cheated on her H, and the bio father was on the birth certificate, not the husband. Further, if a father isn't married to the mother, that doesn't mean he can't have rights to that child. I know PLENTY of situations of crimnal, non-child-support-paying fathers who were never married to the mother, and are not on the birth certificate, but still have parental rights as the biological father of the child. Being on the birth cert or not being on it is not what legally determines paternal rights. So legally speaking, the presumed paternity thing isn't actually true, at least not in the US.

CrazyCatLady3 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:2dfbb447-a0f6-4108-9f90-5978112a08ee">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can we really legalize morality? : No, it's because an infertile couple can have the nuptial union of soul and body. Just because a man or woman's reproductive faculties are not resulting in a child does not mean they have now lost their nature of man and woman. He's still a man, she's still a woman, and the nature of their actions together are still the same as that of a couple without infertility issues. They can still engage in the marital act (sex). Their relationship is still fruitful, if no biological children actually result. To put it bluntly, "sex" between the the same sexes is not actually "sex". It is not actually intercourse, or the marital act. It is something else that we relate to sex because it may end up in an orgasm, but it is not two bodies becoming one, with the giving and receiving actions of the marital union. All of this requires a much deeper look at the meaning of our bodies. In our modern society, the body is meaningless. It is a utilitarian possession of ours. We own it and use it for our own purposes. Catholics, and even many other societies of old, didn't view the body that way (it all really started with the Cartesian dualism of Renee Descartes). You WERE your body, and what you did with your body had meaning. That's why the sexual act is so important and symbolic.
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

<div>I know you're giving me the catholic perspective, which i appreciate, but that article was actually trying to make a secular argument and I was criticizing it from that angle, esp. since this thread has discussed where to draw the line between religious versus secular views. If you don't have the catholic view that sex must be fruitful (and could instead be an expression of love/bonding between a committed couple), there's no need for it to be P-V sex (sorry for the infantile terminology).</div><div>
</div><div>So I'm not trying to make an argument that catholics should change their view on marriage/sex, but rather, that in the secular world (or a world where other people follow other religions with different beliefs) the arguments in that article break down.</div>

caitriona87 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:5d779b04-2f8e-4db8-af8d-565bec5a14ff">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]You make some good points, Caitriona. However, I know situations where a woman cheated on her H, and the bio father was on the birth certificate, not the husband. Further, if a father isn't married to the mother, that doesn't mean he can't have rights to that child. I know PLENTY of situations of crimnal, non-child-support-paying fathers who were never married to the mother, and are not on the birth certificate, but still have parental rights as the biological father of the child. Being on the birth cert or not being on it is not what legally determines paternal rights. So legally speaking, the presumed paternity thing isn't actually true, at least not in the US.
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

This may vary by state. I've come across some of it as it pertains to adoption law (on a pretty cursory level since I only deal with it tangentially.)

Even with all those situations though, we see that the issues caused could have been avoided if "traditional" marriage norms had been upheld by the involved parties (exclusivity, etc.) The confusion over parental rights is created by severing sex and marriage and commitment thereto, and redefining marriage to be sexless would cause more of the same.

Something I have also never seen is a thorough explanation of why, if marriage is about nothing more than a romantic relationship, should the state get involved at all? The burden of proof is really on those who would redefine marriage. Why does it make sense to remove the parameter of male/female, but NOT those of two (instead of three,) permanence (instead of 10 years (which Mexico actually proposed to do, not sure if it was implemented)) etc? What overarching definition of marriage necessitates some of those criteria, but not others? When we consider the reproductive capacity of male/female and the resulting responsibilities in creating a new life, they seem to all stand or fall quite neatly together.

Resa77 · March 2013

Good points, Cait! Now consider this...

You're saying (and it makes sense, don't get me wrong) that there are 3 things that define traditional marriage, seperating it from any other romantic relationship: permanence, exclusivity and one man/one woman. The thing is, society already doesn't agree with the first 2, so why are we trying to make sure the last one is upheld? It seems you're argument is that the first two remain, but they don't.

People enter into open marriages willingly. I used to have a co-worker whose marriage was open from the start, and they both had sex outside of their relationship. My parents' first townhouse was on a street where almost all the other couples were swingers, and slept with one another, and my parents were the weirdos who were exclusive.

People also enter into marriages knowing that it might not last. I actually know of people who admit that they'll most likely end up divorcing and remarrying. And honestly, most of my non-Catholic friends/coworkers (and even some Catholic) say things like "well, if this doesn't work out..." which indicates that they don't think marriage is permanent. Long terms, yes, but not permanent. T

These examples, I think, clearly indicate that the first two factors (permanence and exclusivity) aren't really uphelp by society, so it's hard to make a case that the last factor (one man/one woman) must be upheld. It's not illegal to have an open marriage, and it's not illegal to enter into a marriage with the intention of it being long-term, but not life-long. So why do we have to uphold the last factor of one man/one woman?

That all being said -- I agree that this leads to a great deal of confusion about what marriage actually means. But I don't think the burden is on "them" (those in favor of gay marriage) to redefine marriage, anymore than it's on us to explain why we didn't do anything about them redefining marriage when things like prenups, no-fault divorce, and swingers were all the rage.

monkeysip · March 2013

Resa,

You make good points about how our society no longer accepts the other facets of the definition of marriage, so why accept the man/woman one, but I think that's the point entirely.

I think the burden of proof is on people who don't accept any of the facets to explain what exactly marriage is for, and what is the government's stake in it.

Is the government supposed to give benefits and sanction two people's affections for each other? It doesn't make sense. Because I vow to love someone for my whole life, I'm suddenly allowed tax and legal benefits? What does that have to do with the government, or even SOCIETY'S interests? Two people can love each other without marriage.

Marriage must be based upon the family, or it doesn't make any sense at all. And the foundation of the family is the also the foundation of society. Gay marriage doesn't benefit society or the government in any way, and neither does unfaithful or impermanent relationships. So people can have these relationships all they want, but there's no social benefit. Therefore, society/government doesn't need to sanction them at all.

Riss91 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:78eb192f-2f24-4f57-a5a0-a8c6581d44c7">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE] That all being said -- I agree that this leads to a great deal of confusion about what marriage actually means. But I don't think the burden is on "them" (those in favor of gay marriage) to redefine marriage, anymore than it's on us to explain why we didn't do anything about them redefining marriage when things like prenups, no-fault divorce, and swingers were all the rage.
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

Not all state laws are enacted by indiviual citizen vote. In many cases, the state legislature votes on it and the only thing you can do is write letters and petitions and hope your state officials vote in your favor. So, there might have been significant opposition, without being able to affect the outcome of the law.

I believe there was, and has been opposition to no-fault divorce from the Catholic Church. However, when the law was first introduced in the 70s, it was a transitional time within the Church - where priests and other leaders were falling weak towards the "sexual revolution" mentality. I know that more recent instances of states adopting no-fault divorce have been met with much more oppositional fervor, though I don't think the Church has been able to stop the laws from being passed.

Pre-nups are tricky because some of them aren't contracted specifically for the purpose of "if there is a divorce". Sometimes they are set-up to determine the flow of assets in other cases (death/mental incapacitation of spouse, etc). As for "swingers" I think you could fall into the problem we discussed above with how you police/punish those that commit adultery. God doesn't ask us to legislate all of His commands into law. He asks us to follow them regardless of the law and to do our best to discourage sin.

Resa77 · March 2013

You make a LOT of sense with that, Monkey. Thanks! Now I'll keep playing devil's advocate...

I don't think you can allow/not allow things based on whether it's useful to others. It's not really that useful for me that poor woman and their children get food through WIC. (Note: I am glad there are programs like WIC to help people out...I'm just making a point). It doesn't do anything for me at all. Gay marriage would be very useful to gay couples who want to be on the same insurance plan, want to be recognized legally and socially as a family, etc. Just because it wouldn't benefit everyone in society doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit a portion of society. Benefiting some people has, historically, been reason enough to do something.

monkeysip · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:b9f13c19-807f-49ea-9387-7bb60162e77a">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]You make a LOT of sense with that, Monkey. Thanks! Now I'll keep playing devil's advocate... I don't think you can allow/not allow things based on whether it's useful to others. It's not really that useful for me that poor woman and their children get food through WIC. (Note: I am glad there are programs like WIC to help people out...I'm just making a point). It doesn't do anything for me at all. Gay marriage would be very useful to gay couples who want to be on the same insurance plan, want to be recognized legally and socially as a family, etc. Just because it wouldn't benefit everyone in society doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit a portion of society. Benefiting some people has, historically, been reason enough to do something.
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

But you can easily argue that it IS beneficial to you and society for a woman to get WIC for her children. Properly cared for children are going to grow up to be good productive citizens. Children who grow up in poverty and lack things like nutrition, education, healthcare, etc. are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, be unemployed, jobless, etc. That in turn will negatively affect society as a whole.

The whole idea that the government is only there to protect individual rights and interests is a 18th century notion. This came out of the rise of liberalism and individualism. And really, protestantism, and eventually secular materialism.

Both the ancient and the Catholic philosophical understanding of government is that all people are connected. Government is there not in a negative sense to stop people from hurting others, but government is there to foster the proper development of society.

Think about the two notions of freedom. The ancient notion is freedom for the good. It's a positive idea of giving people freedom to live fruitful lives. The modern notion is freedom from restriction... there is no sense of any goal for that freedom, but freedom is sought for it's own sake. Freedom=being able to do what you want to do without limitations.

Obviously, we must still respect individual dignity. It's not ok to kill a bunch of people for the benefit of society. But we must ask ourselves with all rights and laws whether it is protecting human dignity but also benefiting society.

I'm also not against certain rights, like hospital visitation and willing property. I think a person should be able to give property and hospital rights to anyone they choose, whether it's their husband, their grandma, their lesbian lover, or neighbor. But what does it mean to give a relationship the title of a marriage? If we just hand it out to any two living beings that ask for it, it loses all of its meaning. And the government and society have no business handing out titles for no reason.

Resa77 · March 2013

That actually makes a lot of sense. I'm still not sure I'd be able to convince a progay marriage person that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is right, but I def feel like I could at least make some good, thoughtprovoking points. thanks to Monkey and Caitriona in particular for responding to my points. I've shared a lot of your points with my H and he and I will surely be discussing them more over the next few weeks. We love having theological/philosophical/ political conversations!

newlyseliski · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_can-we-really-legalize-morality?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:d2185bbf-6fe4-4f3b-b1c6-b74097738570Post:5f538916-3ada-4b4a-be73-b5883505cdd3">Re: Can we really legalize morality?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can we really legalize morality? : I know you're giving me the catholic perspective, which i appreciate, but that article was actually trying to make a secular argument and I was criticizing it from that angle, esp. since this thread has discussed where to draw the line between religious versus secular views. If you don't have the catholic view that sex must be fruitful (and could instead be an expression of love/bonding between a committed couple), there's no need for it to be P-V sex (sorry for the infantile terminology). So I'm not trying to make an argument that catholics should change their view on marriage/sex, but rather, that in the secular world (or a world where other people follow other religions with different beliefs) the arguments in that article break down.
Posted by CrazyCatLady3[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>There is a differentiation in the beginning of the article I posted between two views of marriage... conjugal versus revisionist. From a purely utilitarian perspective... while both may benefit society in their own ways, conjugal marriage when properly implemented has a greater quantity of benefits for society than revisionist. If government eliminated marriage across the board and both same-sex and opposite-sex couples were equally without the "rights" and "benefits" of a legal marriage (I agree with the ladies above that no one has an inherent "right" to any sort of tax break or legal benefits)... who would lose out the most? Additionally, it has not always been a solely catholic view that marriage is inherently open to children... children being seen as optional or merely tangential in marriage is a rather recent historical phenomenon (approximately the last 100 years) in the larger expanse of human history.
</div>

maryjohnson610 · March 2013

To me it's not about morality (although morality makes it easier), but it's clear that marriage is for the procreation of children. So therefore, it seems that it can only be possible for a man and woman to be married because only they have the POSSIBILITY to naturally concieve a child. I say possibility because this includes couples who may not be able to get pregnant, but are technically capable of sexual intercourse.

newlyseliski · March 2013

Can we really legalize morality?

Re: Can we really legalize morality?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards