Arguments against gay marriage "not those of serious people"?

[Oreoracle]

But why wasn’t the Catholic Church loud enough on the injustice? Human fallibility.

…]

This isn’t invalidated because a bunch of baptized Catholics at the time were being disobedient and beguiling themselves with novel justifications.

Thank you. I think we may disagree as to the extent of the problem (the Church largely defended slavery until the position became unpopular, for example), but at least you concede that a great many Catholics were mistaken at the time.

My next question is: How many Catholics have to be mistaken before the Church itself is at fault? Do only the opinions of officials count? Or only the Pope’s opinion? Or only his opinion while speaking infallibly? Or is it an axiom that the Church is always right?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Thank you. I think we may disagree as to the extent of the problem (the Church largely defended slavery until the position became unpopular, for example), but at least you concede that a great many Catholics were mistaken at the time.

My next question is: How many Catholics have to be mistaken before the Church itself is at fault? Do only the opinions of officials count? Or only the Pope’s opinion? Or only his opinion while speaking infallibly? Or is it an axiom that the Church is always right?

Where do you think the Church largely defended slavery?

 

[edwest2]

theweek.com/article/index/264096/speedreads-federal-judge-arguments-against-gay-marriage-are-not-those-of-serious-people

Does this Judge think current laws banning marriage to multiple people is excluding people from marriage? This Judge may not not be convinced of what is cited above but the following is worth noting:

bit.do/fEoQ

bit.do/fEow

Thank you. One of the quickest roads to poverty is to be an unwed mother. With no responsible father in the child’s life, there will be other problems.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Thank you. I think we may disagree as to the extent of the problem (the Church largely defended slavery until the position became unpopular, for example), but at least you concede that a great many Catholics were mistaken at the time.

My next question is: How many Catholics have to be mistaken before the Church itself is at fault? Do only the opinions of officials count? Or only the Pope’s opinion? Or only his opinion while speaking infallibly? Or is it an axiom that the Church is always right?

"The Catholic Church and slavery

"What about the charge that the Catholic Church did not condemn slavery until the 1890s and actually approved of it before then? In fact, the popes vigorously condemned African and Indian thralldom three and four centuries earlier — a fact amply documented by Fr. Joel Panzer in his book, The Popes and Slavery. The argument that follows is largely based on his study.

"Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull Sicut Dudum (1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

"A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.

"When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.

“Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.” In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.”

Source: catholiceducation.org

Peace,
Ed

 

[Contarini]

But presumably the Church has never been interested in the secular definition of marriage anyway.

Actually it has. The Church has historically accepted marriage as defined by secular society and then added restrictions to it, such as a ban on divorce or polygamy.

This is why this is such a difficult issue with such threatening long-term implications. If we accept the idea that there’s a basic “secular” concept of marriage and we are adding a restriction “no gay marriage,” then we have essentially accepted the charge that we are discriminating against gay people.

The only way the Church’s position make sense is that “man + woman” is essential to the nature of marriage. Man + man or woman + woman aren’t defective versions of marriage. They aren’t marriage at all.

Or would the Church like to make itself culpable for the original secular definition of marriage that forbade interracial marriages?

Original? What do you mean by that? Are you under the impression that everyone always forbade interracial marriage until recently? While societies have at various times tried to restrict marriage in various ways, a ban on interracial marriage per se is a modern phenomenon. There is no “original secular definition.” In ancient Greece and Rome, for instance, people married members of other ethnic groups all the time. And in the Middle Ages, and until about the mid-seventeenth century. Again, this doesn’t deny that there were prejudices and that people might try to prevent “their” women from being “taken” by the men of some other group. But there was no general ban based on race.

This is one of the basic fallacies that is underlying the seeming moral inevitability of gay marriage.

So if the secular definition changes, how does this threaten Catholicism’s definition in the slightest?

Because the the Church can no longer do what it has done since the beginning: assume that secular society means basically the same thing by “marriage” but needs to have some things corrected by the Church’s fuller understanding.

Edwin

 

[JimG]

Why would the subject of interracial marriage even be an issue with respect to the acceptability of same sex marriage? The Church did not oppose interracial marriage, which was primarily a peculiar prohibition of states in the deep south. For a case study of a priest who was murdered by a minister for joining his daughter in marriage with a Catholic man, read Sharon Davies’ “Rising Road: A True Tale of Love, Race, and Religion in America.”

That case was viewed as an intolerable interracial marriage by the minister, though not quite as intolerable as the daughter becoming Catholic. And it involves a future supreme court justice.

For that matter, when it comes to racial segregation, it was a Louisiana archbishop who excommunicated a parishioner who opposed school integration.

 

[styrgwillidar]

George Gilder’s, “Men and Marriage” is a very good read on the role of marriage in society throughout history. Doesn’t address the gay marriage issue at all, if I recall correctly. But rather, how marriage has been fundamental in every society throughout history in harnessing men’s interest in a stable and improving society. Countering the instinct of unmarried men/young single men to be disinterested in society as a whole and more focused on just meeting their own individual needs/interests. Basically the difference between packs of individuals tending towards violence and immediate gratification, and integrated members of society tending towards maintaining it and improving it for the security of their progeny.

As a single Dad, I do have to say my kids are severely handicapped by not having a woman in the house raising them. Being there every day. Showing them an example of a relationship. No matter how hard I try, even with allowing their mother full access in their home with me, I can not be both mother and father. I can not be both male and female. (although, I’m apparently the one who’ll be doing the wedding dress shopping with my daughter if/when that time comes…)

Two gay men are still men. They don’t think of themselves as women because they aren’t. They may in fact be more masculine than myself. They can’t model a male/female relationship to any children they may adopt or have custody of. Similarly, two gay women are two women and not capable of modeling a male/female relationship.

In our society, regardless of what the affects may be on children raised by gay couples (and studies have gone both ways), we’ve already embarked on that social experiment. I suspect that while there will always be individual success stories, that overall the data will be like that for children from divorced families being raised by single parents. More likely to be abused emotionally, sexually and physically. More likely to be victims and perpetrators of violence. More likely to be promusicous with all the associated issues like disease, complete less education, single parenthood etc. More likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.

In addition, like adopted children (and in many ways kids of divorce) they’re going to want to know where they came from and how their biological parent really felt about them. What were they to them? Divorced kids really do wonder about the feelings of the absent parent where that parent has significantly less custody. Why do they choose not to be around as much-- is the kid really not that important to them, they weren’t ever loved? Adopted kids feel a strong compulsion to find out their background. Why do they exist? Why did their parent give them up? Why’d Mom or Dad give me up to this gay couple? Or if they came from a surrogate, were they just a transaction for Mom or Dad? Just a commodity to be bought or sold? Something to be acquired by someone else? How does that affect them?

 

[JimG]

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. …] The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued” existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering.

The judge’s statements quote above are actually merely surmises or guesses on his part, since same sex ‘marriage’ has not been around long enough to evaluate its effect on those matters.

What’s undeniable is the already declining total fertility rate in the Western world which threatens depopulation and decline in many countries.

“Giving benefits to same-sex relationships is not the problem; what bodes ill for the common good (the good of society) is redefining marriage.* Why?* If the law redefines marriage to include same-sex partners, many in society will come to see marriage as simply an emotional union (the revisionist view).* In negative terms, marriage will then come to be misunderstood.* Why is that problematic?* Because… “to the extent that marriage is misunderstood, it will be harder to see the point of its norms, to live by them, and to urge them on others” The norms?* Exclusivity, permanence, and, hence, family stability.”
Source: catholicworldreport.com/Item/2368/what_price_marriage.aspx

And to the above quote I would add, besides family stability, societal stability as a result.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So where was the Church’s outrage when the secular definition of marriage forbade interracial marriages? Or should we interpret the Church’s centuries of silence on the matter as its seal of approval?

Please show where the definitive teaching of the Catholic Church involved ‘centuries of silence’ regarding interracial marriages?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thank you. I think we may disagree as to the extent of the problem (the Church largely defended slavery until the position became unpopular, for example), but at least you concede that a great many Catholics were mistaken at the time.

My next question is: How many Catholics have to be mistaken before the Church itself is at fault? Do only the opinions of officials count? Or only the Pope’s opinion? Or only his opinion while speaking infallibly? Or is it an axiom that the Church is always right?

Wow. You certainly make a lot of statements that you seem to claim as ‘fact’, without showing any kind of proof for them.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Interracial coupling has never (and will never) prevent a sacramental marriage. Not so for same-sex coupling.

But why wasn’t the Catholic Church loud enough on the injustice? Human fallibility. It’s the exact same reason why Catholics as we breath and type aren’t adequately defending marriage, and perhaps two centuries from now, when the West’s gender and marital experimentation is widely accepted as a ruinous chapter in history, the present example will be used against us, in much the same way you’re attempting to use the failings of past generations. The argument isn’t there: secular authorities do what secular authorities do, but even when racism from secular authorities was rampant in the Americas and Africa, Catholic missionaries were still doing their work amongst all the controversy. This isn’t invalidated because a bunch of baptized Catholics at the time were being disobedient and beguiling themselves with novel justifications. (Modernism and progress were likewise extremely common rallying cries for maintaining racial purity and transcontinental supremacy) It’s a mirror of today.

Oh puhleese. . .I know what you’re saying, but you have to be careful because what you say is going to picked up, twisted, and misquoted.

“Loud enough”, ‘not loud enough’, come on. The Church does not micromanage. Plenty of bishops were right on the line supporting abolition, equal rights, and interracial marriages, especially in areas where this was a concern. (I mean, once slavery is outlawed, there is no reason to bring up chants of ‘end slavery’, right? If somebody says “but the Church was not condemning slavery in the US in 1870”, first, by then it was already illegal, and second, ‘condemning meant in what way?’ Did they expect to see the equivalent of the Pope coming out and declaring, “I do solemnly declare as infallible that slavery is morally evil’ as though THAT would be 'enough”. . .when it was not necessary because the Church had ALREADY DECLARED IT? That ‘infallible teaching’ doesn’t have be ex cathedra every single time to be infallible teaching?

So now you’ll get the resident atheists bleating, “See, YOUR CHURCH MADE A MISTAKE, ha ha ha, now you’ll just say it was ‘some people’, 'you’re not real authorities then so why do we think anything you say know isn’t just you ‘individuals’ being wrong AGAIN, ha ha ha”. . .

Don’t let them dictate an argument where you ‘try to prove a negative’. Don’t let them use their own definitions or set their own criteria for what they think is ‘enough’ so that they can claim you didn’t live up to it, thereby you were wrong then and now. . .

Don’t let them try to claim as ‘fact’ statements that they don’t have any proof of being facts at all.

Don’t be ‘reacting’ to people and thinking that ‘turning the other cheek’ means they’ll suddenly say, “Oh look. . .these people aren’t arguing against me, surely that means they were right all along, only people who love God would be loving enough not to argue against me”. Because that’s not the case. People ALSO don’t ‘argue’ because the other person is RIGHT . . and the ‘resident atheists’ are going to claim that if we don’t defend ourselves against a charge of wrongdoing, we’re wrong. . .

AND they’ll claim if we DO defend ourselves, we’re obviously trying to ‘cover up’ something, so we’re still wrong.

Don’t let them put you in a box where no matter what you say, they can make it look as though you’re wrong. They aren’t ‘in charge’ of debate, they aren’t in charge of what is right or wrong. GOD IS.

So if we are upholding GOD’s TRUTH then we are RIGHT, no matter what they ‘claim’.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

Honestly I don’t understand how “serious people” who have risen to the position of court judge can FAIL to see how marriage plays a role in responsible procreation. (Unless they simply DO NOT WANT TO SEE it, which I suspect is often the case).

It’s not only “promoting procreation” - that is a sloppy presentation of the argument, since if all we wanted to do is generate new beings, we would just encourage people to have sex willy-nilly. The whole point is that procreation is a non-trivial endeavor, requiring a relational structure to support it, namely a father and a mother, in the ongoing, sexually exclusive, cooperative roles of husband and wife. In other words, in a MARRIAGE.

 

[phil19034]

Honestly I don’t understand how “serious people” who have risen to the position of court judge can FAIL to see how marriage plays a role in responsible procreation. (Unless they simply DO NOT WANT TO SEE it, which I suspect is often the case).

It’s not only “promoting procreation” - that is a sloppy presentation of the argument, since if all we wanted to do is generate new beings, we would just encourage people to have sex willy-nilly. The whole point is that procreation is a non-trivial endeavor, requiring a relational structure to support it, namely a father and a mother, in the ongoing, sexually exclusive, cooperative roles of husband and wife. In other words, in a MARRIAGE.

I work at a law firm. The problem is that practice of law is filled with lots of sexual sinners and atheists. Perhaps more so than other industries. I know a large number of attorneys who have cheated on their spouses, been divorced multiple times, are homosexual, etc. People even have sex in their offices after hours. It’s very much like what you see on TV.

Judges come from that environment.

Also, some attorneys are self-righteous.

When St. Pope John Paul II came to Philadelphia in the 1979, the city built a $200,000 altar & for security for an outside for Mass on the Parkway, in front of the Cathedral Basilica. The city was sued by a law school student… a so-called CATHOLIC law school student who claimed that it broke the separation of Church and State. The city denied the charges and said that it was spending the money to encourage tourism and economic development. The altar was to stay up and outside for several weeks after the Pope’s visit for pictures, etc. Over 1 million people attended Mass with the Pope and the city wanted to capitalize on it. The law school student won.

Because of that law suit, when the World Meeting of Families comes to Philadelphia in 2015, all funds will need to be supplied by the Archdiocese and the private sector. No city dollars can be used, even for police.

I’m sorry… but a religious event that brings one million people to a city is a major boost to the local economy and deserving of police protection.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Are you suggesting that you “know” who is happy and who isn’t based solely on your personal belief concerning sexual identity?
Thats the first time I’ve heard that one…

I didn’t say anything about happiness…

 

[TK421]

Oh puhleese. . .I know what you’re saying, but you have to be careful because what you say is going to picked up, twisted, and misquoted.

“Loud enough”, ‘not loud enough’, come on. The Church does not micromanage. Plenty of bishops were right on the line supporting abolition, equal rights, and interracial marriages, especially in areas where this was a concern. (I mean, once slavery is outlawed, there is no reason to bring up chants of ‘end slavery’, right? If somebody says “but the Church was not condemning slavery in the US in 1870”, first, by then it was already illegal, and second, ‘condemning meant in what way?’ Did they expect to see the equivalent of the Pope coming out and declaring, “I do solemnly declare as infallible that slavery is morally evil’ as though THAT would be 'enough”. . .when it was not necessary because the Church had ALREADY DECLARED IT? That ‘infallible teaching’ doesn’t have be ex cathedra every single time to be infallible teaching?

So now you’ll get the resident atheists bleating, “See, YOUR CHURCH MADE A MISTAKE, ha ha ha, now you’ll just say it was ‘some people’, 'you’re not real authorities then so why do we think anything you say know isn’t just you ‘individuals’ being wrong AGAIN, ha ha ha”. . .

Don’t let them dictate an argument where you ‘try to prove a negative’. Don’t let them use their own definitions or set their own criteria for what they think is ‘enough’ so that they can claim you didn’t live up to it, thereby you were wrong then and now. . .

Don’t let them try to claim as ‘fact’ statements that they don’t have any proof of being facts at all.

Don’t be ‘reacting’ to people and thinking that ‘turning the other cheek’ means they’ll suddenly say, “Oh look. . .these people aren’t arguing against me, surely that means they were right all along, only people who love God would be loving enough not to argue against me”. Because that’s not the case. People ALSO don’t ‘argue’ because the other person is RIGHT . . and the ‘resident atheists’ are going to claim that if we don’t defend ourselves against a charge of wrongdoing, we’re wrong. . .

AND they’ll claim if we DO defend ourselves, we’re obviously trying to ‘cover up’ something, so we’re still wrong.

Don’t let them put you in a box where no matter what you say, they can make it look as though you’re wrong. They aren’t ‘in charge’ of debate, they aren’t in charge of what is right or wrong. GOD IS.

So if we are upholding GOD’s TRUTH then we are RIGHT, no matter what they ‘claim’.

St JPII didn’t shy away from apologizing on behalf of the certain times and occasions where the Church wasn’t as up-to-par as it should have been. Granted, during those times, you could probably always safely conclude that the Church was much better than the secular authorities or the public alternative (certainly the case with slavery, minorities, war, and sexual morality, especially sexual morality today compared to public education), but that is neither here nor there. That’s not the standards the Church holds itself to. He was never saying that the Church was wrong during those times, just that it had fallen short in certain areas.

There are some that can never be satisfied with any answer you give. They will hunger for any human flaw they can find and cherish it like a diamond ring. In such cases, it really doesn’t matter if you make yourself appear weak or unnecessarily apologetic or not; you’re not going to win them over either way. On the other hand, there are also many people that do possess an inner receptiveness and curiosity, and denying that Catholics ever did anything wrong is not helpful for those people. There were a lot of Catholic individuals within Belgium, France, Spain, and elsewhere that did evil things. It’s easier to just admit that Catholics can be sinners and then move on.

And yes, in all of these cases, they are apologies on behalf of individuals, not apologies on behalf of doctrine.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

There’s a lot of posts in this thread but no one addressed what the judge said.

He said that excluding gay people from getting married for procreation reasons doesn’t make sense as it doesn’t affect straight people who decide to get married or have children. You could argue that marriage is for having children, but it isn’t in the secular world, so he was right.

 

[SoulSolace]

There’s a lot of posts in this thread but no one addressed what the judge said.

He said that excluding gay people from getting married for procreation reasons doesn’t make sense as it doesn’t affect straight people who decide to get married or have children. You could argue that marriage is for having children, but it isn’t in the secular world, so he was right.

Gay unions affect the society as a whole.
Children should not be exposed to such as it is very confusing to them.
When they (children) feel a natural repulsion to something (and most do), then are told to over ride that repulsion, it is harmful and confusing.
That’s the simple answer.
Others can get into the theology of it, but I think it has been well stated on here as to how other nations where gay unions are accepted have been affected.
The family structure is what keeps a society together.

Saint John Paul the Great said on one of his visits to America “As goes the family, there also goes the nation”.
Wise words from a wise man.

 

[JimG]

There’s a lot of posts in this thread but no one addressed what the judge said.

He said that excluding gay people from getting married for procreation reasons doesn’t make sense as it doesn’t affect straight people who decide to get married or have children. You could argue that marriage is for having children, but it isn’t in the secular world, so he was right.

The judge simply does not know whether what he says is the case. Changing the definition of marriage may very well affect how people in general view marriage, and affect whether marriage for procreation purposes will decrease.

The state of marriage has already fallen on hard times due to the use of contraception, due to the availability of no fault divorce, due to sexual license, fornication, adultery, and cohabitation. Why would the fact of same sex marriage not make a difference as well?

The view of marriage among young people has already declined. Many view it unfavorably. National fertility rates have declined in a great many nations, such that they can no longer sustain their population.

A rational person would not disregard those factors.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Gay unions affect the society as a whole.
Children should not be exposed to such as it is very confusing to them.
When they (children) feel a natural repulsion to something (and most do), then are told to over ride that repulsion, it is harmful and confusing.
That’s the simple answer.
Others can get into the theology of it, but I think it has been well stated on here as to how other nations where gay unions are accepted have been affected.
The family structure is what keeps a society together.

Saint John Paul the Great said on one of his visits to America “As goes the family, there also goes the nation”.
Wise words from a wise man.

Exposed to what? People different to, or even the same, as them?

QUOTE=JimG;12136712]The judge simply does not know whether what he says is the case. Changing the definition of marriage may very well affect how people in general view marriage, and affect whether marriage for procreation purposes will decrease.

The state of marriage has already fallen on hard times due to the use of contraception, due to the availability of no fault divorce, due to sexual license, fornication, adultery, and cohabitation. Why would the fact of same sex marriage not make a difference as well?

The view of marriage among young people has already declined. Many view it unfavorably. National fertility rates have declined in a great many nations, such that they can no longer sustain their population.

A rational person would not disregard those factors.

Well you talked about a lot of stuff there, but in regards to what the judge said you only asked “Why would the fact of same sex marriage not make a difference as well?”.

That’s not an answer, that’s just talking about a lot of unrelated things and then asking a question as though that’s an answer to why allowing gay marriage will decrease straight marriages or births in straight marriages.

A rational person would show how allowing gay marriage will decrease straight marriages or births in them.

 

[SoulSolace]

Exposed to what? People different to, or even the same, as them?
QUOTE]

The exposure to same sex couples influences a child’s perceptions and can override their natural inclinations to opposite gender attraction.
What a child is exposed to in their formative years will influence their future.
Environment plays a large part in the choices children make.