Right. I’m asking whether you believe that Aquinas and/or the Church today would hold that the State does have an obligation to protect vulnerable populations, or if you would hold that this, too, is a mater of prudential judgement. For example, would abortion or domestic abuse count as vices that can be tolerated in a pluralistic society if politicians deems necessary or whether the State out to criminalize them?
I don’t believe it should be criminalized either. Just was trying to offer perspective on one of the points stated here.
The Hebrews could also have multiple wives, but that’s always unjust these days. The Hebrews executed apostates, but the Church advocates for religious freedom. When looking the Israelites, one has to remember it wasn’t until Christ that the fullness of truth was revealed and so the modern Church’s stance on modeen issues is more reliable.
I suppose I could see how same sex attraction could exist, but the idea of *exclusive *ssa just seems impossible. How can a normal man be not attracted to women at all?
I kind find these comments rather frustrating. I know it’s not your intention but that is rather discouraging and reads like ‘real men’ don’t experience exclusive same sex attraction.
It is my understanding the Church would consider it very difficult to argue that conditions or citizen immaturity could ever be such that decriminalisation of murder or abortion would ever be good for a States commonweal. Unlike lesser vices society itself would likely fall apart if murder was not criminalised.
I meant that I could somewhat understand the concept of ssa, but not exclusivity. Especially since a tendency to not be attracted to girls would lead to that individual being the last with his genes.
It is sobering to recognise that we don’t know the mechanism by which any kind of sexual attraction operates.
What would “lesser” entail?
A simple explanation would be using analogies. There are a plethora of medical disorders and illnesses that occur that decrease the chance of passing one’s genes on yet still persist (some due to chromosomal issues, developmental issues, exposures, etc). One simple example is Duchenne’s Muscular dystrophy which is most often due to sporadic de Novo mutation (there are other more complicated diseases with multifactorial etiology as well). The cause of same sex attraction is unknown but most likely mutlifactorial and very complicated (probably with varying factors of different importance for each case).
I am not really up with what is concretely out there apart from the gay lobby’s exact equivalent to heterosexual marriage (and even civil hetero marriage in many countries is not the same as what Canon law defines as marriage).
My issue is really I can’t conceive of what it means to have a “lesser form” of gay union. But when you said you could tolerate “lesser legal recognition of stable, faithful SS cohabitations”, I thought you must have something in mind.
And now that gay people have the right to civil marriage on an equal basis with opposite sex couples, why would they want to go back to any sort of “lesser form”? I doubt that the right to marriage that was upheld by the Supreme Court is going to be taken away any time soon if ever in the US.
You do realize, don’t you, that every gay person that was ever born had two opposite sex parents who were usually heterosexual? What ever it is that makes someone gay was not passed down from one gay person to another. If there is any genetic component to homosexuality, it was passed down to a gay person from their mostly heterosexual parents. And any genetic component to homosexuality can also be passed down by the brothers and sisters of gay people.
Yes it’s hard to get our heads around positively legislating for permanent personal unions other than marriage just as it’s hard for many to accept homosexuality.
It is those “eligibility conditions” you put on the arrangement that IMO make an acceptable outcome impossible.
I can’t imagine they would. But nor can I imagine that SSM will ever be acceptable to the Church or to vast numbers of thinking people.
The vast numbers you speak of will become increasingly less vast, especially among younger people. According to polling by the Pew Research Center, 73% of those under 30 are supportive of same-sex marriage.I can’t imagine they would. But nor can I imagine that SSM will ever be acceptable to the Church or to vast numbers of thinking people.
Less vast will likely remain vast.
