That sums it up.



The vehicle through which our society does this is the State. By giving this power to the State, you are ceding it authority that you will one day want to take back when society decides you are in the way of its perpetuation. And you won't be able to take it back.



Amen, I hope it stays this way.

You'll note that I view the role of the Church and that of the State quite differently.

People always say that, but the truth is, unless words have meaning, there is no substance to any argument.



Then you don't understand either marriage or the interests of the state. At some point, you're going to find it hard to reconcile your radical individualism with your Christianity, since the two are not compatible.



QED



Then you are either naive, or disingenuous, or haven't been paying attention. There is massive evidence that high rates of divorce, single parenthood and polygamy all result in high rates of social instability. We know that children of divorced parents, or children raised by one parent alone (usually the mother), hae much higher rates of social pathologies than children raised by their biological parents in intact traditional families. All those social pathologies have societal costs, which, at the end of the day, wind up costing money, both directly and indirectly. Therein lies the state's vested interest--and society's.

On the social costs of polygamy, much of what you see in the Muslim world today can be laid to the practice. When a small number of men can monopolize a high percentage of the women, the result is a large pool of young men who cannot marry at all or form lasting intimate relationships with women, let alone start families. Large numbers of single young men is always a recipe for trouble. The problem China has because of its one child policy and sex-selective abortion (a ratio of male-to-female live births of 1.26-to-1), you get in the Arab world because of polygamy. Then there is the whole matter of what polygamy does to the dignity and status of women, but, hey, you say some women dig it, and therefore we have no right to interfere with their karma. Dude!



Abusus non tollit usus. And outliers do not invalidate the norms.



Libertarianism sounds good until you pass out of puberty. Alas, some people never do.



But you also misunderstand both the role of the Church in society, and the Church's understanding of the role of the state.

I can't see what context possibly has to do with it. It's illogical. It doesn't get logical because you put it into context.





Even if it is, it's quite beside the point. The point is that you're basing your arguments on suppositions that are false.

Have a look. Running on false assumptions and faulty logic isn't going to get you to useful conclusions.

I would take this line of thought more seriously if you weren't also using "same-sex marriage" throughout the thread as well. We both know what we mean, and if you want to purge paradoxical phrases from my posts, your own should set the example.



Honestly, the recognition of contractual relationships between people of varying gender is running out of steam as a topic that I am find interest in, but I think I'd like to create a new thread about this idea so as to not completely derail this one, because I'd love to hear why you think this. But let's agree to save that for a new thread.



I think you misread the sentence. I said it's "no more destructive than...". Of course they are damaging, what I continue to question is the basis by which one is outside of the law, and others are not.

The "karma" and "dude" references I think imply that you believe I'm coming at it from a free-love point of view. I was more thinking of the unjust persecution of consensual polygamist Mormons (not to be confused with the non-consensual "compound" variety).



I agree, which is why I don't feel threatened by people of the same sex having the same contractual relationship that a husband and wife do in the eyes of the State. That would have nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage as the Church understands it (which is the outlier, not the norm, sadly).



I would have thought you were more enlightened than run-of-the-mill conservatives. Despite sprinkling "limited government" crumbs around here and there, you're a Statist at heart - so long as it does what you want it to do. Once it decides to do something else, well then it has to be limited, by which time of course it's too late. Never ceases to amaze me.



I think I'll take that up in the same new thread, it does interest me.

The Founding Fathers were statists, too--otherwise they would not have formed a state. And that's as far as I'll take this discussion, which is now going in circles.

You're really going to make me quote the dictionary here aren't you.

"the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty"

It's only going in circles because I keep asking you to reconcile your belief that


with



It's one or the other. I don't blame you for not wanting to reconcile your disdain with the management skills of the US Government vs your elevated view of the role of the State, but let's be clear about the impasse here.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

Here is a scholarly work, titled, "What is Marriage".

jjp,

The role of any State, as defined by its Constitution and laws, is to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of the governed society as a whole, helping to delineate where one ends and the other begins. The health of any society depends on that balance: if it is upset in favor of one or the other, you end up with either tyranny or anarchy.

Now, it is worthwhile to point out that anarchy is not necessarily a bad thing: in a utopian world in which every citizen respected every other citizen's rights, there would be little need for either governments or laws, and an extraordinary governing board could always be convened should the need arise. However, you would have to admit that in such a world, almost any form of government would work well, for the same reason.

This is why I find your statement both troubling and perplexing:

If you reject allowing the State to have *any* authority over "individual liberty rights," you are essentially rejecting its right to exist.


First of all, I would qualify your statement by specifying no-fault divorce and elective single parenthood, since these are the real issues. Society has decided--for the moment--that these are not evil, and that polygamy is. Even though they are mistaken, this is the milieu in which we are working, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

The point I would like to make, however, is that every time a society puts itself at odds with truth by declaring something to be good when it is evil or evil when it is good, it goes a little further in upsetting its own balance and brings itself that much closer to its own ruin. In other words, right now we have two evils that we are already calling good, and are on the verge of doing the same for a third. Are you suggesting that we can safely continue this trend, just because we have already (mistakenly) bought into the notion that some of these evils aren't evil?


You're not clarifying anything here, merely restating what we already knew to be your position. (We would be interested to know why you hold this position, but you haven't told us yet.)


There are people who call themselves Elks, Eagles and Moose, and nobody has any problem with that because they are not looking to take advantage of their status as "animals" to circumvent laws that were made for humans, or get special legal protection because of their "species." That's the difference!


When a majority of Americans agrees to this, then yes, laws can be changed under the Constitution to accommodate that belief--that's the American way. However, that says nothing about whether or not such laws would be good for American society as a whole.

The Church has always been concerned about the good of society as a whole, and when matters affecting the common good are at stake, it is always appropriate for her members, as citizens, to speak out. Her members look to their bishops for guidance, then work together with other like-minded citizens to make their voice heard by lawmakers.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/gay-penguin-reunion_n_1093298.html?ref=gay-voices

This is tangentially related, and perhaps I am just seeing too much into it, but I think that when one looks at the premises behind this story, we can see where the culture is headed in terms of gay marriage.

As one commentator (I don't remember who) pointed out recently, the statistics show a very close correlation between age and opinion on gay marriage (and gay issues in general). Currently, the cutoff is around age 50, with the number opposed becoming fewer and fewer among the younger respondents.

While it is true that gay marriage is in one sense a non-issue, since few gays are really all that interested in getting married, the fact remains that the recognition of gay marriage as a legally protected right will accomplish several things, among which are:

• Confirming in people's minds the absurdity of the entire institution of marriage
• Advancing the marginalization of any person or group who regards homosexuality as anything less than perfectly normal
• Bringing us one step closer to the time when affirming the sinfulness of homosexual behavior will be a criminal offense

Let's face it, we're in for a rough ride.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Ephphanius, Excellent and balanced approach to this topic! The US has legitimate reasons for not wanting to extend marriage to so many different parties- one of theme is due to the legalities in inheritance. IF you think the probate courts are bogged down now! There are so many other reasons why the civil government wants to promote and more traditional family it lends it self to domestic tranquility and the General Welfare of the US.

Scotty,

Thanks for the kind words. However, I was a little confused by one thing you stated:

Perhaps you meant they "should want to promote ..."


Peace,
Deacon Richard