B
buffalo
Guest
So? The rights or well being of children are not considered.
Bombarded with pro same-sex marriage arguments, more the younger generations?
- Status
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I went to a Catholic School/Church combined. I was taught Catholicism as though it were true and unchallengeable. We all were.
It is not until you get a bit older that you realise that a lot of what is taught, is simply a view and that the world is full of other views. A lot of it is not true and a lot of it is harmful.
I have buddhists, muslims, catholics, protestants and many other religions in our family. The school was very anti-protestant in particular.
B
buffalo
Guest
Catholic dogma is true. Everyone is free to challenge it. St Paul exhorts us to test everything and retain what is true (paraphrasing).
Yes - the world is full of other views. You will know them by their fruits.
List me the top three you feel are not true.
Yes, there have been issues with Protestants. They refer to the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon. Not very good for fostering relationships. We can do much better and over the last 50 years (since Vatican II) relations have become much better. These are man made issues though and one cannot fault the Catholic proposition.
I have friends of other faiths too. Charity must rule the day and example too.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
The Church’s teaching is true. Unchallengeable? What does that even mean? That you’re not supposed to believe in things other than the doctrine? Pretty sure that’s the core tenet of every religion. You believe in it or you don’t.
You don’t say? I would never have known this… had I not been instructed in a world religions class in my Catholic high school.
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that other people believe other things. That doesn’t make them true. It doesn’t give us the right as Catholics to treat them uncharitably because they believe untrue things though. In interactions with members of other faiths and those who have fallen away from our own faith, we should stress our commonalities. That’s the only way to open or re-open minds and hearts to the fullness of the Truth.
Walking into an interfaith gathering and saying “you’re all believing in false things, come join the Church” is a really, really, bad way of going about it. Is it a true statement? Yes. It’s also an uncharitable statement and won’t win any souls over to Christ.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
more…
Adam Kolasinski
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
more…
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
Aprilfloyd,
I have heard this before, other claims, other religions. They can’t all be right. Somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong. This is very common confusion today because of our moral relativistic society and it is very disheartening but…
Biggest issue, biggest different. Jesus. He is the center of time. He is the one and only person that has had as much impact on as many lives and on history and on the world. No one else. All those other religions acknowledge Jesus but they don’t acknowledge facts. . They all acknowledge that Jesus came and died but who was he. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are historical facts. There are historical records that prove this. Eye witness accounts. Historical places maintained for us so we can know.
It is easy to say, oh there are so many religions, they all have their own point of view, there is no way how to know who is right but in reality, all it takes is a little bit of research. Today we have more ways to search and read historical documents than any other time but most usually we are too busy and it is easy to say there are many religions, who can know who is right. You can know. You can find out by doing your own research. Research the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. I am not talking just about the Bible,though that is great. There are books and documents and websites all to help you know. Research the early church and early Christians and their writings. You will find the Catholic church. You will find the facts about Jesus, the eye witness accounts for which the apostles, among others, all gave their life for. Who would do that if it wasn’t true. One person might die for a lie, but many?, all allow themselves be tortured and killed. Only for truth.
All those other religions are based on you reaching for God or goodness or peace. Christianity is the only one where God out of his love for us, comes to us. He comes to live with us and he died for us because of his love. In none of those other religions does that happen. None of those other religions have the person of Jesus Christ or his presence in the Holy Eucharist every day, all day.
Difference, Christianity is God with us, not God or someone else over there.
God bless and I pray the grace of the Holy Spirit you received at confirmation guides you.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
In many places, 60-70 years ago it was:
- 2 people
- Opposite sex
- Same race
Why not consider them?
For what it’s worth, Mary was under 18 when she was impregnated. Granted, she didn’t have sex. But if the Lord didn’t choose her, she definitely would have had plenty of it before she turned 18. The age of consent has actually been raised in the past, it is higher than it would have been traditionally. Aren’t you all for tradition?
If we accept that abortion is wrong and either that birth control is also wrong or that birth control can fail, then sure it does. Regardless, my main argument would be #2 re: consent.
You seem to imply that we have to rely on holy books alone for moral guidance. If so, then why didn’t God provide one for thousands of years? For some people, He still hasn’t caught up.
No. God gave us the gift of reason, so let’s use it.
I don’t know if Catholics confuse our love of tradition with the ability to make fallacious statements, but yeah, that’s a logical fallacy. Many things have been practiced in the past which we now deem immoral, so the fact that something may be etched in tradition doesn’t tell us anything.
The example that someone wanted me to discuss was father/daughter. How can a daughter ever give consent to a sexual relationship with her father, when he holds in his hands the power of life and death?
Your point is likely “just because someone says it’s love, doesn’t make it right,” a point with which I would never disagree. But that alone doesn’t solve our problem: yes, it is possible for someone to “love” in a “wrong” way, the question is: is this way “wrong”?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I am aware. I was brought up in a Catholic v Protestant society and it was and still is - unpleasant.
L
Lochias
Guest
True, but ultimately a useless point in this context; we know that same-sex marriage is wrong, from many sources. There’s no ambiguity here for anyone who’s actually willing to listen to the truth.
…this is, at the very least, highly offensive, and also shows that you’re being freaking obtuse about context; Mary lived in an ancient Jewish land. We do not. Good freaking grief. You also don’t have any clue, any freaking clue at all, what Mary would or wouldn’t have done if she’d said “no” to God. Not even a little bit. Mary didn’t have sex with Joseph AFTER she gave birth to Jesus, so I guess that shoots your cute little theory right down, doesn’t it?
Be careful when you so lightly toss around Mary’s good name and graces; offensive in the extreme, and if you do it again, I’ll report you at light speed.It does when taken in the proper context. Let’s get with the picture, here.
Care to elaborate on this? Are you saying that a father could simply kill his daughter if she refused? I assume not, but it’s hard to say without context.
Again, given context: YES, it’s wrong for Same-sex couples to marry. This isn’t some big mystery or thing to ponder; it’s BASIC.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I am sorry, but it makes no sense that if there was a God, he would have part of himself, come to earth, impregnate another man’s wife, call himself a God and be both God and His son. Die for us. Why a sacrifice? Makes no sense. Rise from the dead, because he loves us. But he may be love too.
Split into three but remain as one, with a Ghost. Concerns himself with trivialities e.g. If you play with your penis or vagina. Wishes undying love, or else.
invents a heaven - where you can live for ever - how awful or a Hell. Gives you free will, yet you can’t escape him and live a good life. Wants you to eat his body and flesh. Is obsessed with human beings sex life… should I go on. A person called Jesus may well have lived, it’s a common name. But all the other stuff, is the stuff of myths and folklore, passed through the ages.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
We’re discussing whether or not it is wrong. Someone makes a point, I respond, you respond with “yes but we know it’s wrong.” That is not helpful.
Why is it offensive?
I see. So tradition is all you need to make a moral argument when you want to make that argument. But if you want the opposite, tradition suddenly loses it’s meaning?
Sure I do. She was engaged at the time. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that an engaged person will soon marry and that a married couple will soon have sex. These steps follow each other perfectly.
How does it “shoot my theory down”?
Mary was called to a special task by God. This is not the norm. In fact, there is only 1 case that we know of wherein a human woman gives birth to the Son of God. It is not typical, it is in fact, extremely rare for any couple to get married and never engage in intercourse. Do you dispute that?
For the life of me, I can’t figure out what part of that could possibly upset you.
Do you really think that the average married couple doesn’t have sex?
I suggest you be more mindful of exercising charity by not assuming the worst of someone’s statements.
Report what? Be my guest.
As long as you continue not actually explaining your objections, I will simply cut and paste this message to respond.It does when taken in the proper context. Let’s get with the picture, here.
A father can isolate his daughter from society. He has the power and opportunity to do this.
A father can withhold food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc. from his dependent daughter. He has the power and opportunity to do this.
A father can physically overpower his daughter. He has the power and opportunity to do this.
A father can train his daughter physically or psychologically to accept submission to his whims. He has the power and opportunity to do this.
Fortunately, we have more protections against this in the modern West than ever before, but is still remarkably and frighteningly easy and it’s happening all the time.
Here’s a good way to put things in perspective. Are you familiar with Jerry Sandusky? If so, you know he molested/raped countless numbers of boys. He was not their father, so he had nowhere near the control over them that a father would. Yet despite how many victims he had, nothing truly came out about it until many, many years later. Just compare that type of power to the power that a father has. I fear that most of them get away with it.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Do you have a lot of supporters of other deviant acts in the US?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Nope. It’s called making law.
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
Giving yourself up for someone else is the most purest sign of love. That can be hard to understand in our times right now but it is true. Think about someone you love incredibly, if you saw they were in trouble would you help them? Because of our sin we can not enter heaven. Jesus chose to die for us and take the punishment for our sin.
You sound like you are very young and I suspect you don’t have children because if you did you would understand about concern for trivialities. That is what God is, a parent. A father who knows that those trivialities can harm us. Just like a parent would protect a child from playing somewhere dangerous so God’s ways protect us and we, like that child, may not understand the why but it is for our best.
It sounds like you have been trying to live a good life without him and it isn’t working, that is because all good comes from God. Anything good we have comes from God. You have the choice to reject God’s love and goodness, just like you can reject anyone’s love but it makes for a not so happy life.
Going on is up to you since we have free will but again as far as the sex life and same sex marriage and all the other sexual sins out there, again God, like earthly parents knows what is best for us and wants only our best. We can’t see the dangers until it is too late but he can and wants to protect us.
This last statement tells me you are choosing to believe an uninformed opinion. You are choosing not to do the research but you yourself are believing myths and falsehoods. There may have been others name Jesus but no one else was Jesus Christ written about in all the historical writings. You can’t say any thing is a myth or a folklore without research and by the mere fact that you are saying it is a myth I know you are just stating an uninformed opinion, probably one based on friends, peers or the culture.
But then again maybe that is why you are here, someone, somewhere led you.
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
There already are. Yes, People are trying now to marry their pets. One man did in Canada. There are pet priestesses. They will marry you and you pet. Be it a fish, bird, snake or whatever. Probably even your pet rock. Also, there was a recent woman who married herself and a man who married his computer. And sadly there are people waiting in the wings to marry children. Of course none of this is legal by the law of the land yet but change the definition of marriage and it will be.
We will soon see just how disturbing this all is as it plays out and people start coming out with their sad and disturbing desires.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Are there any changes to the definition of marriage you would accept?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I agree giving yourself up is the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus/God was not doing that he was and knew that he would not die. A man dying is quite a different matter.
Jesus is God, so the theory goes, so who was administering the punishment? Was it God? So was he taking a hit, so that he would not get punished by himself? Sacrificing yourself to yourself to save yourself from punishing people - that you yourself created. How bizarre.
Why create us and then create harms too?
People have been born lived and died and no doubt had ‘good lives’ without knowing one thing about the Catholic Church and it’s God.
Why create dangers for people and them worry about the harm of those dangers.
There are lots of myths and legends and stories in world cultures. To not take them literally is not ‘uninformed’ - I would suggest the opposite.
K
Kithrus
Guest
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
In the UK - ‘rape in marriage’ was criminalised in 1982 in Scotland and in 1991 in England.
For years it was felt that a woman had no right to say no to her husband, and could be subjected to non-consensual sex or rape. The changes to the definition of marriage were welcome by all in society. The catholic church did not disagree.
My contention is that this was a correct redefinition of marriage to protect the woman and is very welcome.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
If I wanted an ice cream cone, I would not go to a shoe store. If I wanted to find people that sympathize with the plight of women, I would go… well, somewhere other than CAF.
Just a tip. But hey, maybe you’re a glutton for punishment, like me.
(Also, another positive re-definition of marriage was the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws.)
- Status