Beards and Gay Marriage

[Peter_Plato]

If you want to say that there is such a thing as an “involuntary sin”, however, you are going against the tradition of the Church.

I am not so sure that this is against the Tradition of the Church.

Paul in Romans 7 writes the famous diatribe against sin as “a law unto itself.”

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Perhaps the point of God’s mercy is that it is understood that human beings are not, on our own, capable of escaping the clutches of sin - both our own personal sins and the state of original sin - but what makes us culpable is not that we sin but that we do not take advantage of the redemptive power of grace to escape from it. Hence, we are not blameworthy, in this sense, for sinning - that is expected by God - but for not escaping its clutches when we have been afforded the opportunity to do so. By not taking advantage of the opportune moment we demonstrate that we love the broken state of sin we find ourselves in more than the Goodness which grace affords us.

CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce is an apt depiction of this, I suspect.

 

[Bradski]

Sounds like the outlook of gay marriage advocates towards heterosexual marriage. They want what the other (heterosexual) persons have (conjugal union) and prefer it that heterosexuals didn’t have it at all…

Can you link to anyone who has said that they want marriage for gays and at the same time want that right taken from heterosexuals?

Personally I think that that accusation is a crock, a rather lame attempt to denigrate a genuine requirement for equal rights and certainly not worthy to be included with your generally thoughtful posts (with which I almost always disagree).

If you like I can post various titbits from some discussions I have had with some, how shall I say, fundamental Christians and tar all of you with the same mindless accusations. We can then see how far down we can drag the level of discussion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…certainly not worthy to be included with your generally thoughtful posts (with which I almost always disagree).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Perhaps the point of God’s mercy is that it is understood that human beings are not, on our own, capable of escaping the clutches of sin - both our own personal sins and the state of original sin - but what makes us culpable is not that we sin but that we do not take advantage of the redemptive power of grace to escape from it. Hence, we are not blameworthy, in this sense, for sinning - that is expected by God - but for not escaping its clutches when we have been afforded the opportunity to do so. By not taking advantage of the opportune moment we demonstrate that we love the broken state of sin we find ourselves in more than the Goodness which grace affords us.

CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce is an apt depiction of this, I suspect.

It seems to me that Paul is expressing his powerlessness before sin, yes. But Paul certainly does not deny that he chooses the sins freely. When he says “That which I want, I do not do”, the Greek word for “want” here is “thelo” – which means a passive willing. Basically it means to be “up for” something or to passively desire its effect. Paul does not use the word “boulesthai”, which means “intend”. The implication is that his DESIRES and his WILL are in conflict. He desires good, but chooses/intends bad.

Thus, his sins are a product of his will – which has been overtaken by his “sarkos”, or flesh.

This sort of active/passive distinction is all over the Greek language, and all over the New Testament. It’s really a shame that English words like “desire” don’t track the distinction, since “desire” can imply something either passive or active.

We are blameworthy for sinning, as we are blameworthy for not availing ourselves of God’s grace. Indeed, the very concept of a “sin” is the concept of a blameworthy-thing; thus the Latin word peccata, which is a *legal *term.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am glad that we are on the same page that “harm” does not necessarily mean “harm to a person”, but “harm to a relationship”. This naturally means that “harm” could be done to a principle, or an ideal or a concept.

That makes arguments for the Catholic moral ethics so much easier to make.

All Catholic ethos proposes that harm is done, when the moral law is contravened, to a person, or to a relationship, principle, ideal or concept.

And that’s the answer to “who does it hurt if a gay man marries another gay man?”

I’m glad to hear you speak up so forcefully for a Christian principle. You reminded me of a passage from an essay written in 1939 by the Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain.

“Woe to the world should the Christians fail to do their job, which is to heighten here on earth the charges and tensions of spirituality; should they listen to those blind leaders of the blind who seek the means to order and to do good in things which are in their very nature dissolution and death. We have no illusions about the misery of human nature and the wickedness of the world. But we have no illusions either about the blindness and the harm worked by those pseudo-realists who cultivate and exalt evil and who look upon the Gospel as a decorative myth which could not be taken seriously without wrecking the machinery of the world. They themselves do their part in ruining this unhappy world and driving it to folly and despair.” 1939, I Believe edited by Clifton Fadiman

In other words, to paraphrase another great thinker:

The reason evil men triumph is that good men stand around sucking their thumbs.

 

[Bradski]

All Catholic ethos proposes that harm is done, when the moral law is contravened, to a person, or to a relationship, principle, ideal or concept.

Correction: You believe harm is done when your moral law is contravened.

And that’s the answer to “who does it hurt if a gay man marries another gay man?”

The answer is perfectly acceptable in a religious concept. If you want to convince a fellow traveler that they are breaking Christian moral law and should take action, then who could argue against your position.

But if you want to convince others, and you want, in the case of gay marriage, to introduce (secular) laws to uphold your position, then you are going to have to produce specific examples of harm. Other than pointing to scripture or quoting the Catechism, you are going to have to make an argument. But what happens when you are asked to give example of harm so that we can see if your claims are justified?

I’m not going to give concrete examples.

Case dismissed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Can you link to anyone who has said that they want marriage for gays and at the same time want that right taken from heterosexuals?

“They” do want marriage for gays but also want to dictate the definition of what a marriage is. By controlling or framing the terms surrounding the “reality” of marriage, SSM advocates are, in fact, assuming the right to dictate to heterosexual human society what family is, what constitutes “conjugal” relationships and what the basic structure of society is. There is definitely a move on the part of gay marriage advocates to take the right to a mother and father away from children.

I’ve used the following analogy before and I still think it is quite apt.

Dictating the terms of “marriage” to society is much the same as passengers in an automobile demanding that they have a right to drive, but given their incapacity to do so, they do not want to subscribe to the terms of “licensing” but want changes made to accommodate “anyone within a motor vehicle.” The fact that gay individuals cannot procreate is not a “right taken from them,” just as passengers do not have an inherent right to a driver’s license, it is an option they forego, a capacity they could exercise, but choose not to use their biological equipment for its intended purpose and demand that biology and reality be altered to their idiosyncratic preferences.

Bradski, I’ve never been convinced by revisionist arguments for redefinition of marriage. On the whole, they are weak. The fact that more and more individuals are caving into social indoctrination is more a sign of moral malaise or even apathy than it is of individuals achieving some higher moral perspective. Modern western society is being duped into accepting a compromised morality and the mechanism by which it is happening is coercive social engineering. Western culture will reap what it sows. Silencing dissenting views is not indicative of a robust morality, but of one that cannot tolerate discourse and critique.

At least you are willing to engage in discussion and not resort to lobbing accusations of homophobia at opposing views.

I am, however, disappointed that you have taken up the “civil rights” hue and cry, knowing, I would assume, that you understand rights come at a cost and are not doled out indiscriminately merely because they are demanded.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am, however, disappointed that you have taken up the “civil rights” hue and cry, knowing, I would assume, that you understand rights come at a cost and are not doled out indiscriminately merely because they are demanded.

I think you have nailed this.

Rights don’t get to be doled out because they are demanded. The right to a marriage license concerns most of all the right to procreate and be responsible for the issue of one’s loins. It concerns also the right, as you’ve pointed out, for children to have mothers and fathers, and not be thrown in childhood into the arms of same-sex sodomites, which is one way of describing same-sex marriage. And we know, of course, that the next great demand of same-sex partners in marriage is that they have (if they do not already have) equal access to the adoption of children.

In fact, the domino effect is a harm that society can well expect as a result of this movement. More and more the breaking of ancient traditions that served a valid society even if they frustrated the will of individual lovers.

Incestuous marriage must now become a right?

Polygamous marriage must now become a right?

Group marriage must now become a right.

Marriage to one’s pet must now become a right?

When and where is the line drawn to stop the madness of deliberate harm to society?

 

[PRmerger]

Looking back over the conversation, I see that you said:

To which I responded “No.” I should have been more clear. Urges can’t be wrong, and feelings/thoughts can only be wrong if they are voluntary. And the specific example you gave (about murderous temptation) isn’t sinful, since it isn’t voluntary.

But I see how you could have thought that I was saying thoughts couldn’t be sinful. Of course, I agree they can, if they are voluntary.

 

[Bradski]

“They” do want marriage for gays but also want to dictate the definition of what a marriage is.

It’s easy to create an impression by careful use of words. Some are loaded with meaning. Let’s look at two question:

Do you think that ‘they’ should be allowed to dictate how we should define marriage?

Do you think that the definition of marriage could include same sex couples who want to commit to a life-long partnership?

Which do you think shows prejudice? Which is the loaded question? Which the more benign? Which the more neutral? If there were a survey being conducted, which question would you prefer to be asked?

By controlling or framing the terms surrounding the “reality” of marriage, SSM advocates are, in fact, assuming the right to dictate to heterosexual human society what family is, what constitutes “conjugal” relationships and what the basic structure of society is. There is definitely a move on the part of gay marriage advocates to take the right to a mother and father away from children.

We are not the same people our parents were. They, in turn, were not the same as their parents. The world in which we live changes, sometimes for the worse but mostly for the better. Marriage has almost never been this romantic ideal of a nuclear family living an idyll behind the white picket fence.

Homosexuals used to be vilified. Now it’s not the case and the sky didn’t fall because of that. They used not to be able to commit to each other in life long relationships that were legally recognised. Now they can. Still the sky did not fall. They used not to be able to call that relationship a marriage and now in an increasing proportion of the modern world, they can. And hang on a minute…I just need to check something…

Yes, I can confirm that the sky is still where it should be.

There has been no harm done. Except to religious sensibilities and those of a conservative mind set who say that it has always been thus (it hasn’t) and it cannot therefore change (it has). If we want to take it a step further and grant adoption rights to same sex couples then simply arguing that it has always been the case that a child has a mother and a father (they haven’t) and that that is always the best arrangement (it isn’t) is not going to convince those who are looking for some solid evidence on which to base a decision that you are right.

The fact that more and more individuals are caving into social indoctrination is more a sign of moral malaise or even apathy than it is of individuals achieving some higher moral perspective. Modern western society is being duped into accepting a compromised morality and the mechanism by which it is happening is coercive social engineering.

Do you really think that the progress made in gay rights is caused by people ‘caving in’ or being ‘indoctrinated’? Are all those who have and are changing their minds on this matter part of a societal malaise? Are they simply ‘apathetic’? Do you think they are saying, in effect – ‘Oh look, it’s all too hard. Just give them what they want and stop pestering me!’ Are they all being ‘duped’? They are being ‘coerced’? It’s one huge global feat of social engineering by…them?

You have a lot less faith in your fellow Man than do I.

I am, however, disappointed that you have taken up the “civil rights” hue and cry, knowing, I would assume, that you understand rights come at a cost and are not doled out indiscriminately merely because they are demanded.

Indeed they come at a cost. And the ones that will be paying that cost will be those who base their arguments simply and only on morals derived from their chosen religion. Keep saying that society will collapse, keep telling everyone that we are all headed for rack and ruin, keep crying wolf and eventually, when none of that occurs, everyone will stop listening.

You’ll be telling us next that same sex marriage is the equivalent of throwing children into the arms of same sex sodomites, for heaven’s sake. Oh, hang on…

…and not be thrown in childhood into the arms of same-sex sodomites…

And if you want to discuss getting married to your schnauser, then start another thread. Is there a pet section on the forum?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We are not the same people our parents were. They, in turn, were not the same as their parents. The world in which we live changes, sometimes for the worse but mostly for the better.

Now THAT is a statement of faith.

Marriage has almost never been this romantic ideal of a nuclear family living an idyll behind the white picket fence.

No, but marriages were once, on average, quite stable. They aren’t today, nowhere near it. And don’t go saying that *those *marriages were mostly miserable – you don’t know that, once again it is a statement you make on the basis of faith. Blind faith, if you ask me.

 

[Bradski]

Now THAT is a statement of faith.

It’s a personal opinion based on my personal observations - it certainly seems better to me than it did a couple of generations ago. And also an opinion based on what I deem to be relevant empirical evidence.

…but marriages were once, on average, quite stable. They aren’t today, nowhere near it. And don’t go saying that *those *marriages were mostly miserable – you don’t know that, once again it is a statement you make on the basis of faith. Blind faith, if you ask me.

I agree that marriages today are less stable. But I’m not sure that has a bearing on the pros and conns of gay marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree that marriages today are less stable. But I’m not sure that has a bearing on the pros and conns of gay marriage.

It has a bearing on the theory that we’re making moral progress!

 

[Bradski]

It has a bearing on the theory that we’re making moral progress!

And moral progress, in your mind, from a particular religious viewpoint.
If you want society to remain as it is, or you want change it or you only want some changes to parts of it, then you have to put forward logical and coherent arguments for your position.

I want drink driving to be illegal because…

I want no fault divorce to end because…

I want the legal age for marriage to be 15 because…

If you put forward a reasonable case with facts and figures that cannot easily be refuted, then you may make some progress in your aim. Putting personal opinion up as an argument will get you nowhere and you’ll get there pretty fast. Likewise simply putting forward your understanding of the moral position as you perceive it will get you to the same place in the same time frame.

It’s not Ordered Towards Procreation! And…what? That it? Well, neither is the sex that almost everyone has. No-one thinks about sex as it relates to conception unless they are actually thinking about conceiving.

That is Not Meant to Go There! OK, you’ve just about summed up any form of foreplay whatsoever. Hardly anyone only does this with that in there so hardly anyone pays attention to an argument that fatuous.

It’s Disordered! No, it is not. And every reputable medical and psychological organisation on the planet says so. Unless you want to quote from the papers of the Sierra Leone Psychological Association or the Saudi Arabian Mental Health Organisation and a few others in places where you’d probably not want to visit on holiday.

It’s Immoral! Because it is written? Well what is written on a lot of matters does not appear to be correct. Try contraception for one. Where the vast majority of people are not saying that yes, it is immoral but we’re going to do it anyway. They’re saying that no, we don’t believe it is immoral in the first instance. Same with same sex couples.

The Sky Will Fall! Sorry, you’re losing them. They’re starting to drift off.

It’s Like Throwing Children To Sodomites! Yep, most of them have left. Almost all gone. There were a couple of people who paused for a moment and asked each other – did he just say ‘throwing kids to sodomites?’ And then, shaking their heads, they left too.

 

[PRmerger]

Correction: You believe harm is done when your moral law is contravened.

Well, we are agreed that something can be immoral when it harms a principle.

That’s progress.

But if you want to convince others, and you want, in the case of gay marriage, to introduce (secular) laws to uphold your position, then you are going to have to produce specific examples of harm.

If you can offer specific examples of harm to your relationship with your wife, when you cheat on her, and she never finds out.

I presume you believe that the action is wrong at the very moment you are doing the act typically reserved for your wife and you, with someone else.

So can you give a specific example of harm at that moment? How is your wife harmed when you are engaged in sex with someone else?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And moral progress, in your mind, from a particular religious viewpoint.
If you want society to remain as it is, or you want change it or you only want some changes to parts of it, then you have to put forward logical and coherent arguments for your position.

I want drink driving to be illegal because…

I want no fault divorce to end because…

I want the legal age for marriage to be 15 because…

If you put forward a reasonable case with facts and figures that cannot easily be refuted, then you may make some progress in your aim. Putting personal opinion up as an argument will get you nowhere and you’ll get there pretty fast. Likewise simply putting forward your understanding of the moral position as you perceive it will get you to the same place in the same time frame.

It’s not Ordered Towards Procreation! And…what? That it? Well, neither is the sex that almost everyone has. No-one thinks about sex as it relates to conception unless they are actually thinking about conceiving.

That is Not Meant to Go There! OK, you’ve just about summed up any form of foreplay whatsoever. Hardly anyone only does this with that in there so hardly anyone pays attention to an argument that fatuous.

It’s Disordered! No, it is not. And every reputable medical and psychological organisation on the planet says so. Unless you want to quote from the papers of the Sierra Leone Psychological Association or the Saudi Arabian Mental Health Organisation and a few others in places where you’d probably not want to visit on holiday.

It’s Immoral! Because it is written? Well what is written on a lot of matters does not appear to be correct. Try contraception for one. Where the vast majority of people are not saying that yes, it is immoral but we’re going to do it anyway. They’re saying that no, we don’t believe it is immoral in the first instance. Same with same sex couples.

The Sky Will Fall! Sorry, you’re losing them. They’re starting to drift off.

It’s Like Throwing Children To Sodomites! Yep, most of them have left. Almost all gone. There were a couple of people who paused for a moment and asked each other – did he just say ‘throwing kids to sodomites?’ And then, shaking their heads, they left too.

You are disrespectful and rude. I am done talking with you.

For the record, I never made any of the above arguments as an advocacy for any law. It is an outrageous offense against decent conversation for you to talk as if I did.

I said earlier that PRMerger risked grandstanding. You, my friend, have made grandstanding into a massive substitute for listening and engaging with other people’s opinions.

You could try asking the question, “Why?” But instead you assume you know all the answers.

On second thought, I will leave it open for you to apologize, and we can continue talking. But I’m loathe to do even that. Your ego’s appetite seems a bit out of control, from the evidence of this previous post.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s Like Throwing Children To Sodomites! Yep, most of them have left. Almost all gone. There were a couple of people who paused for a moment and asked each other – did he just say ‘throwing kids to sodomites?’ And then, shaking their heads, they left too.

Psalms 14:1

 

[Bradski]

On second thought, I will leave it open for you to apologize, and we can continue talking. But I’m loathe to do even that. Your ego’s appetite seems a bit out of control, from the evidence of this previous post.

I didn’t think that I had written anything that I haven’t said in one form or another previously, so the fact that you have taken offense surprises me. It wasn’t meant as a personal attack on your particular viewpoint but one on general arguments that a lot of other Christians tend to make.

But if you did indeed take offense then I apologise.

 

[Bradski]

If you can offer specific examples of harm to your relationship with your wife, when you cheat on her, and she never finds out.

PR, I’ve already done this and I’m reluctant to keep returning to matters regarding my personal relationships as a means to further discussion on gay marriage.

For the last time…it would be a breakdown in the trust that my wife has with me. The relationship between us would have changed and I would consider it a change for the worse.

 

[PRmerger]

You are disrespectful and rude.

Not quite.