I think you and others have repeated as much and others have already addressed this argument. The thread, like so many others about this or various topics, may have reached a point of repetition, at an impasse so to speak and reasonable people may simply have to agree to disagree on both sides of the aisle.
So you agree with what I said.
…and indeed with my natural inclination that your sex is your sex and cosmetic surgery only masks that.
But to those that actually choose to undergo such surgery for reasons other than hiding from the mafia, this is a very sensitive and potentially very hurtful topic, for people who are often already very emotionally fragile and even close to suicide. So for that tiny tiny fraction of the population, while I freely admit that I do not understand their viewpoint, I see no need or use in insisting that they have not changed ‘sex’. It means next to nothing to me and a lot to them, so why not be charitable?
Oh, I agree completely. I was just answering a specific question from another poster.I think you and others have repeated as much and others have already addressed this argument. The thread, like so many others about this or various topics, may have reached a point of repetition, at an impasse so to speak and reasonable people may simply have to agree to disagree on both sides of the aisle.
I am literally just asking you to explain your argument if it doesn’t have a darn thing to do with gay marriage (as you previously have said).
I don’t understand your question. Why it is charitable and does not undermine a gay person’s dignity to oppose gay marriage?
Matrimonium comes from mater. The origin and nature were explicit in many Roman sources, marriage was a instrument for procreation. Not just any random assortment of people coming together. The very age a bride could lawfully marry was based on the age of sexual maturity, as a virgo viripotens was, according to Roman law, a 'woman ready to marry". And it was not just any procreation for when men chose take a wife in marriage, as one might also have offspring with a concubine, but such children were ipso facto illegitimate.
This thread is about marriage! Not sure where the abortion came from…and I do think that a Catholic can believe that two men should be allowed to marry because I am that Catholic
That would make you “somewhat of a Catholic”.
The Church cannot convince people who haven’t bothered to read, absorb and understand the teachings, Catholic or not. When I wasn’t a Catholic, I was baffled by their non acceptance of birth control, rejection of abortion, etc. I was ignorant and just took the secular “hey if it makes you happy…why not?” Because Catholic teaching, particularly on life issues results from taking into account biology as well as theology. It is so scholarly, so rational it’s impossible to make an effective argument against it.
Even asking someone asking this question pertaining to their romantic relationship is a sign all is not well.
I dont use it in a religious sense.
“agree to disagree” is nonsensical. It’s a new twist on another saying, “You go your way and I’ll go mine.” And then both parties end their conversation and actually, physically go their separate ways. There is a denial of authority here. Authority must be recognized, not agree to disagree but “I’m right and here’s why. If you don’t think I’m right after explaining things to you then we should go our separate ways.” A 17 year old who is told by his mother or father to do this or that should not reply with ‘well, mom, we’ll just have to agree to disagree’ and does not recognize her authority and goes on to do what he wants.I think you and others have repeated as much and others have already addressed this argument. The thread, like so many others about this or various topics, may have reached a point of repetition, at an impasse so to speak and reasonable people may simply have to agree to disagree on both sides of the aisle.
That’s interesting. All this time you’ve argued for the Catholic POV. And now you say in the case of unions it is not your business. Yet it appears your church believes unions are their business as it teaches with these words at least that not in any way can legal SS unions be recognized.
Ed, I don’t see your point. I haven’t denied that those who support civil unions or marriages for SS couples do not accept Catholic authority on this issue. We all know what the CC teaches. We would have to be practically living under a rock not to. The issue is discussed so much. But I think for the most part we have shown respect. Being respectful doesn’t have to mean being in agreement.
Have you ever thought about why such a “great” and “cool” thing needs so much hand-wringing and effort?The definition does not, it is just a description of what the word is used to mean. But a priori anyone is free to do anything, unless you have a good reason why they should not be allowed to do so.
So if you want to say that people are not free to marry someone of a given [race/sex] you need to justify this restriction to the rest of society or we are going to tell you to mind your own business and leave the [same sex/interracial] couples to get on with their lives.
No, while any word could mean anything in principle, ‘marriage’ means the same thing it has since Roman times - a civil legal arrangement covering two (or more) people who are coming together to form a new family unit. And in roman history it was even used several times explicitly to refer to same sex couples.
Now if you want to use it in a more restrictive religious sense, feel free. If you want to come up with a new word, copyright (or whatever the appropriate intellectual property term would be) it, use that in a more restrictive sense and prevent the nasty homosexuals from using it, feel free.
But if you want to seize ownership of the preexisting word ‘marriage’, tell the rest of us that we may only use it as you dictate, and prevent the nasty homosexuals from using it, then no. Indeedno.
Great, feel away. Let me know how that works out for you.
Your problem is that you need the assent of people like me to force your will on the homosexuals. If push comes to shove we can just shrug and ignore you. Even the majority of ‘Catholics’ disagree with you.
So a hardline dogmatic line of repeating your opinion and making no attempt to engage with the other side is a tactically disastrous approach for you.
I only referred to sexual preference - where there are plenty of examples of homosexual preference in nature.
You are the one who referred to “the natural definition of marriage”, so yes do please find me some examples of animals getting married in nature.
Wow we agree on something! I must know more about Catholic teaching than some thought or more than even I realized. :bigyikes:
Well yeah I suppose but then who would ya’ll debate with?Well, if everyone accepted Catholic teaching…
Agree to disagree requires the consent of both parties. These threads are not making headway here. It’s the old beating a dead horse. So, accepting the authority is the starting point, not just respect. I go to other websites and I just don’t see the point of constant repetition with minor changes to the words. On a Catholic forum, we get that. Marriage Equality is not going to be recognized regardless of what laws are passed. Not because Catholics don’t like gay people but it is clear (and not just my opinion) that full agreement and approval is desired. Why?
