Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[Havard]

Nice try,

No need for the digs.

but Natural Law (which is the basis of much of Catholic thinking on sexuality) has nothing to do with science or biology or even with nature. It is a philosophical/religious construct invented by medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas.

1. Ius naturale was part of Roman society, so it definitely predates Aquinas. It came from the Greeks, and much of it can be attributed to Socrates & Co. 2) Natural law is a school of natural philosophy, and absolutely does include science. The so-called distinction between the two is a modern contrivance. Some older institutions recognize this, e.g., John M. Ball is the Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy at Oxford. His field is math and physics.

 

[Thorolfr]

No need for the digs.

I was just following Lisa’s own example in #412 above where she also starts a reply to me with “Nice try…”

 

[LisaA]

Nice try, but Natural Law (which is the basis of much of Catholic thinking on sexuality) has nothing to do with science or biology or even with nature. It is a philosophical/religious construct invented by medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas.

Nice try indeed. As I said based on Biology and Natural Law. The latter flows from the former. Again it does not take great faith to conclude males are designed to mate with females. Females with males. Thomas Aquinas didn’t make this up, he merely explained how reasonable, rational and fact based are Catholic teaching and of course the same was noted by Plato and other philosophers.

It takes a much greater leap of faith to believe males were designed or expected to mate with other males.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well, few know enough about median incomes for LGBT persons.

“Median LGBT household income is $61,500 vs. $50,000 for the average American household. LGBT households supporting a child reported a median income of $71,100.
Gay men earn more than lesbians individually ($49,000 vs. $43,500 median income), a gap smaller than that of the general population. Lesbians reported marginally higher median household income than gay men ($63,700 vs. $62,300), but are more likely to live in a dual-income household and have children.”

Then we have the world’s LGBT billionaires whose combined net worth is nearly 16 billion. Then the millionaires…

My post is not naming names since financial facts are the point. I’m not trying to embarrass anyone.

Ed

I must have missed something while I was gone tonight as I have not a clue what this has to do with anything. I saw a book was being discussed which I’m not going to spenf $22.95 on. But what do the incomes of LGBT people have to do with SSM? Other than maybe now that the institution of marriage has been extended to SS couples in so many places, how much they can spend on their nuptials, on their donation to the officiant or their non Catholic clergyperson who is willing to perform the ceremony, and on their reception?

 

[Havard]

Havard;12699755:

No need for the digs.

I was just following Lisa’s own example in #412 above where she also stats a reply to me with “Nice try…”

Well then it goes for both of you!

 

[edwest2]

Nice try indeed. As I said based on Biology and Natural Law. The latter flows from the former. Again it does not take great faith to conclude males are designed to mate with females. Females with males. Thomas Aquinas didn’t make this up, he merely explained how reasonable, rational and fact based are Catholic teaching and of course the same was noted by Plato and other philosophers.

It takes a much greater leap of faith to believe males were designed or expected to mate with other males.

And gay or straight, each of us decides when to have sex.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

Nice try indeed. As I said based on Biology and Natural Law. The latter flows from the former. Again it does not take great faith to conclude males are designed to mate with females. Females with males. Thomas Aquinas didn’t make this up, he merely explained how reasonable, rational and fact based are Catholic teaching and of course the same was noted by Plato and other philosophers.

It takes a much greater leap of faith to believe males were designed or expected to mate with other males.

Thomas Aquinas also thought a number of other outdated things. For example, he thought that women are intellectually inferior to men as well as some interesting things about how reproduction actually works:

To begin to understand his position, we must ask why Aquinas thinks women intellectually inferior in the first place. Scripture is likely his first guide. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:10 that “man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man.” This passage echoes Genesis 2:18,19: “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will give him a helpmate.” Aquinas reasons from these scriptural passages that when one thing exists for the sake of another, it is inferior to that other. Other passages indicate more clearly that the intelligence is the seat of woman’s divinely ordained inferiority. When in 1 Corinthians 11:3 St. Paul says that “man is the head of woman,” and in Ephesians 5:22 that “a husband is the head of his wife,” Aquinas takes it as evident that if men are meant to rule, it can only be by virtue of intellectual superiority.

Aquinas’ views on female inferiority were doubtless influenced as well by Aristotle’s reproductive biology, with its understanding of the relation between male and female as one of active (perfect) principle to passive (imperfect) principle. Aristotle saw the sperm as the formative agent; the mother simply supplied raw material to be incorporated into the developing child. He also thought the sperm was directed to producing only male offspring, and that when this did not result it was because something interfered with the active principle within the sperm.

Finally, however, Aquinas does not believe it matters very much whether the particular causes involved in reproduction are to be regarded as failing or not failing when women are engendered. God desires that women be part of the universe, and He orders nature in such a way as to insure that they are produced. (On the question of Aquinas’ biology, see Michael Nolan, “What Aquinas Never Said About Women,” FT, November 1998.)

In addition to the testimony of Scripture and biology, Aquinas probably took female intellectual inferiority to be plain enough from experience. He points out, for example, that shysters prey on widows in preference to men because “men are wiser and more discerning, and not so quickly taken in.” He encourages widows to turn to prayer in their desolation, lest woman’s “softness of soul” lead them to pamper themselves, an occasion of serious sin. He also notes the difficulty women have in sticking to their decisions, and how quickly they can change their minds out of desire, anger, or fear.

firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thomas Aquinas also thought a number of other outdated things. For example, he thought that women are intellectually inferior to men as well as some interesting things about how reproduction actually works:

firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women

I never knew Aquinas had so many thoughts.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Some of you may be interested in this article if you haven’t seen it yet. It a fascinating breakdown of the two sides of the gay marriage debate, and it acknowledges the gaining strength of the redefinition of marriage side, questioning what effects this would have. Here is a teaser:

Girgis, Anderson, and George cite evidence that the meaning of commitment, even within marriage, may be different for many LBGT couples than for heterosexuals, and so the broader cultural norms of marriage, under revisionist policy, may shift in unexpected directions. For instance, Dan Savage, a popular homosexual journalist and strong advocate for same-sex marriage who himself has a male spouse, claims that heterosexual married couples should learn from homosexuals the benefits of open relationships. Savage states,

Monogamy is ridiculous, and people aren’t any good at it. They’re not wired for it. We didn’t evolve for it, it’s not natural, and it places a tremendous strain on our marriages. …And the truth of the matter is that if you’re with somebody for 40 or 50 years and they only cheated on you a few times, they were good at being monogamous, not bad at being monogamous. So I do think there needs to be some leeway. … I think that we should do what we can to preserve marriages and long-term relationships, and one way to do that is to encourage people to have more realistic attitudes about sexual exclusivity.

Several additional examples of the shift in views on marriage that can be seen throughout American culture might be cited. More than 300 prominent scholars and activists have signed a statement called “Beyond Marriage” which calls for legal recognition of sexual relationships involving more than two partners. Jillian Keenan writes in Slate, “Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less ‘correct’ than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. … Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.”

When asked about SSM in an interview, Judith Butler, a lesbian philosophy professor at the University of California – Berkeley answered, “…marriage is only one way of organizing sexuality and organizing kinship…and so I think marriage does have to open. I suppose it has to open to any two people who may want to join in a marriage contract, although I don’t know why it only is two. Why two? I don’t understand the ‘two.’ … Let’s hope that some of the norms that have made marriage into a narrow and restrictive institution can and will change when and if gay people get married.”

Masha Gessen, a lesbian journalist, has stated, “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, you know, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again I don’t think it should exist.”

Girgis, Anderson, and George warn that legal and cultural approval for non-conjugal views of marriage has already led to “malicious prejudice” toward those who continue to believe in this millennia-old norm (p. 9). “Conjugal marriage supporters would become, in the state’s eyes, champions of invidious discrimination. This idea would lead to violations of the rights of conscience and religious freedom, and of parents’ rights to direct their children’s’ education” (p. 63).

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3614/Quo_Vadis_Matrimonium.aspx

 

[edwest2]

I must have missed something while I was gone tonight as I have not a clue what this has to do with anything. I saw a book was being discussed which I’m not going to spenf $22.95 on. But what do the incomes of LGBT people have to do with SSM? Other than maybe now that SSM is legal in so many places, how much they can spend on their nuptials, on their donation to the officiant or their non Catholic clergyperson who is willing to perform the ceremony, and on their reception?

Uh, who pays for gay lobbyists?

“Obama’s evolution on the issue came weeks after he decided against signing an executive order that would have protected gay employees from discrimination by federal contractors. The Washington Post reported that some gay and progressive donors were so incensed by Obama’s decision that they threatened to withhold contributions from a super PAC, Priorities USA, that was supporting Obama’s campaign. After Obama’s announcement of his support for gay marriage, a flood of donations came in.”

Then there’s the ACLU, and NOW and certain groups and publications: "More than 25,000 of the most engaged LGBT leaders in media, government, politics and advocacy look to — — — to keep them informed and knowledgeable.

I left the name of the publication out since the other facts were more important.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Some of you may be interested in this article if you haven’t seen it yet. It a fascinating breakdown of the two sides of the gay marriage debate, and it acknowledges the gaining strength of the redefinition of marriage side, questioning what effects this would have. Here is a teaser:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3614/Quo_Vadis_Matrimonium.aspx

The Catholic World Report is wrong. Obviously wrong. A person stated in the Advocate that Pope Francis’ definition of marriage was “mythology.” This is just a fight to legalize sex with any mix and match group of people and call it “marriage.” Nonsense is nonsense. Children appear to be tools for the facade. Sad.

Ed

 

[FollowChrist34]

Uh, who pays for gay lobbyists?

“Obama’s evolution on the issue came weeks after he decided against signing an executive order that would have protected gay employees from discrimination by federal contractors. The Washington Post reported that some gay and progressive donors were so incensed by Obama’s decision that they threatened to withhold contributions from a super PAC, Priorities USA, that was supporting Obama’s campaign. After Obama’s announcement of his support for gay marriage, a flood of donations came in.”

Then there’s the ACLU, and NOW and certain groups and publications: "More than 25,000 of the most engaged LGBT leaders in media, government, politics and advocacy look to — — — to keep them informed and knowledgeable.

I left the name of the publication out since the other facts were more important.

Ed

True, but a vast majority of the judicial activism is coming from heterosexuals, yes? In the case of the SCOTUS, Catholic to boot. The movement has taken on civil rights mythology. Much of this change is being inflicted by the courts, not by any choice of the electorate. Again, based on a false parallel with the civil rights movement. It is also very similar to the right to choose argument for abortion, how that caught on with the left.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The Catholic World Report is wrong. Obviously wrong. A person stated in the Advocate that Pope Francis’ definition of marriage was “mythology.” This is just a fight to legalize sex with any mix and match group of people and call it “marriage.” Nonsense is nonsense. Children appear to be tools for the facade. Sad.

Ed

Oh ok thanks. If that’s all you meant, conservatives certainly have their lobbyists too on any number of issues. So I didn’t think it had much of anything uniquely to do with anything.

 

[edwest2]

True, but a vast majority of the judicial activism is coming from heterosexuals, yes? In the case of the SCOTUS, Catholic to boot. The movement has taken on civil rights mythology. Much of this change is being inflicted by the courts, not by any choice of the electorate. Again, based on a false parallel with the civil rights movement. It is also very similar to the right to choose argument for abortion, how that caught on with the left.

My reference point for judicial activism rests with the fact that the Supreme Court has been really wrong on matters related to human sexuality. Call it what it is - 1973: It is now legal to kill babies in the womb. The right to choose death for your baby? And the tactics used?

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

You may see some parallels there. The 5 year plan was to eliminate sexual self-control for the entire country - 1968 to 1973. That’s when the groundwork for all the evils associated with the misuse of human sexuality was laid. And vigorously promoted by total strangers right up till now.

Ed

 

[LisaA]

Thomas Aquinas also thought a number of other outdated things. For example, he thought that women are intellectually inferior to men as well as some interesting things about how reproduction actually works:

firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women

You are working incredibly hard to obfuscate the essential issue. While St Thomas may not have had a modern understanding of reproduction he certainly never advanced the delusion that men were ordered or even able to have conjugal relations with other men nor could any sort of male & male sexual activity result in a child being born. They knew how babies were made and it wasn’t through homosexual activity.

 

[LisaA]

My reference point for judicial activism rests with the fact that the Supreme Court has been really wrong on matters related to human sexuality. Call it what it is - 1973: It is now legal to kill babies in the womb. The right to choose death for your baby? And the tactics used?

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

You may see some parallels there. The 5 year plan was to eliminate sexual self-control for the entire country - 1968 to 1973. That’s when the groundwork for all the evils associated with the misuse of human sexuality was laid. And vigorously promoted by total strangers right up till now.

Ed

Great article that lays out how killing unborn human beings became socially acceptable and then the law of the land. It requires systematic lies. We know now how wrong this decision was but these modern day worshippers of Baal still have their advocates and supporters

 

[Sy_Noe]

My reference point for judicial activism rests with the fact that the Supreme Court has been really wrong on matters related to human sexuality. Call it what it is - 1973: It is now legal to kill babies in the womb. The right to choose death for your baby? And the tactics used?

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

You may see some parallels there. The 5 year plan was to eliminate sexual self-control for the entire country - 1968 to 1973. That’s when the groundwork for all the evils associated with the misuse of human sexuality was laid. And vigorously promoted by total strangers right up till now.

Ed

If the Court has been so really wrong, ever thought of trying to get your name placed in nomination for the Court so you could argue your interpretation of the Constitution to those justices who dissent from your opinion?

 

[Thorolfr]

You are working incredibly hard to obfuscate the essential issue. While St Thomas may not have had a modern understanding of reproduction he certainly never advanced the delusion that men were ordered or even able to have conjugal relations with other men nor could any sort of male & male sexual activity result in a child being born. They knew how babies were made and it wasn’t through homosexual activity.

You were just pointing out to me earlier about how Thomas Aquinas “explained how reasonable, rational and fact based are Catholic teaching”. But his beliefs about the intellectual inferiority of women and how reproduction works do not seem to be fact based or reasonable and rational. That being the case, why should I assume that what he thought about sexuality was fact based or reasonable and rational?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Great article that lays out how killing unborn human beings became socially acceptable and then the law of the land. It requires systematic lies. We know now how wrong this decision was but these modern day worshippers of Baal still have their advocates and supporters

What does “killing unborn human beings” have to do with the topic of born SS adult couples marrying?

 

[Darryl1958]

The** coming** war on marriage??!!!

That message is a day late and a dollar short. The legal status of marriage in the West today is little more than a farce.