Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-sex “Marriage”

[WillieWonka]

Adam and Eve were real people -

CCC

[390](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/390.htm’) The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

Natural law calls homosexuals to chastity too. That is why the homosexual act is intrinsically evil. Other acts are not.

Until recently the homosexual act was against the civil law. This reversal was done by the Supreme Court making law.

Massachisetts had gay marriage prior th the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Adam and Eve were real people -

CCC

[390](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/390.htm’) The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

Natural law calls homosexuals to chastity too. That is why the homosexual act is intrinsically evil. Other acts are not.

Until recently the homosexual act was against the civil law. This reversal was done by the Supreme Court making law.

Where does it say that there were two people, named Adam and Eve? What I read is that figurative language was used to describe a primeval event, and that original sin can be traced back to the beginning of time.

How does natural law call homosexuals to chastity? Natural law indicates that homosexual acts do not lead to procreation, but I’m not sure where you’re getting a call to chastity from that. The fact that homosexual acts are outside the norm isn’t a call to chastity either. Some sex acts committed by heterosexuals are outside the norm as well, and do not lead to procreation. Outside the norm does not in and of itself mean “wrong”, it just means fewer instances. That’s not the same as a Divine law saying that something is a sin.

Civil law is changed constantly, if you agree with the change it’s “progress”, if you disagree with the change it’s “activism”.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

The we can move on to this:

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

There are health risks to heterosexual sex, cigarette smoking, drinking and a host of other behaviors. That hasn’t changed the fact that ALL those behaviors are legal.

 

[WillieWonka]

A gay couple is not a family unit. The purpose of civil marriage is to provide a civil institution for the environment of children in a way that accords with the biological social unit. That biological social unit is also paralleled in similar social structures of other animal species.

A gay couple is not having any “rights” abridged by not being married. They are not deprived of loving unions, not deprived of personal happiness, not deprived of sexual activity, not deprived of civil rights (and civil rights do not include, for gays or straights, the right to marry), nor even deprived of joining religions which approve of their activity.

1. Civil law does not define a purpose for civil marriage.
2. Gays do not have legal rights to marry in states where civil law prohibits it. They do have such legal rights in states that allow it.
3. Gays are free to assert whatever rights they choose. If legislatures or courts agree, then legislation is enacted that allows same sex marriabge, and it becomes a legal right for gays to marry.

 

[WillieWonka]

Let us start here:

Divorce Rate in Same-Sex Partnerships In Sweden

A new study published by the Institute For Marriage And Public Policy (IMAPP) in May, 2004, sheds light on the high incidence of legal “divorce” among gays who entered into a registered same-sex partnership in Sweden. The IMAPP report surveys the results of a study published by Gunnar Andersson, earlier this year entitled “Divorce-Risk Patterns In Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ In Norway And Sweden.”
The IMAPP report notes that in Sweden, between 1995 and 2002, there were 1,526 gay partnerships contracted, compared to 280,000 for heterosexual couples. Five out of 1,000 new couples in Sweden are same-sex. Sixty-two percent of those are male same-sex unions.
The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.
According to IMAPP: “Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50% higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200% higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children.”

The conclusions are different when one looks at statistics going back to 1970. They show a steady increase in divorce prior to legal gay marriage.

But, how about Massachusetts? Are Catholics divorcing because gays can get married?

 

[WillieWonka]

Where does it say that there were two people, named Adam and Eve? What I read is that figurative language was used to describe a primeval event, and that original sin can be traced back to the beginning of time.

How does natural law call homosexuals to chastity? Natural law indicates that homosexual acts do not lead to procreation, but I’m not sure where you’re getting a call to chastity from that. The fact that homosexual acts are outside the norm isn’t a call to chastity either. Some sex acts committed by heterosexuals are outside the norm as well, and do not lead to procreation. Outside the norm does not in and of itself mean “wrong”, it just means fewer instances. That’s not the same as a Divine law saying that something is a sin.

Civil law is changed constantly, if you agree with the change it’s “progress”, if you disagree with the change it’s “activism”.

Makes one wonder how people know their discernment of natural law is correct. (If natural law even exists.)

 

[mkingdomlvr]

1. Civil law does not define a purpose for civil marriage.
2. Gays do not have legal rights to marry in states where civil law prohibits it. They do have such legal rights in states that allow it.
3. Gays are free to assert whatever rights they choose. If legislatures or courts agree, then legislation is enacted that allows same sex marriabge, and it becomes a legal right for gays to marry.

Whenever the “procreation purpose” comes up, I always wonder about the heterosexuals who marry that either do not want children or are incapable of having them. Does that mean that their marriages are invalid?

 

[WillieWonka]

Whenever the “procreation purpose” comes up, I always wonder about the heterosexuals who marry that either do not want children or are incapable of having them. Does that mean that their marriages are invalid?

Maybe their religious marriages are invalid. But most civil marriage has no requirements other than age, opposite sex partner, $25, and two witnesses. That’s all.

 

[buffalo]

Where does it say that there were two people, named Adam and Eve? What I read is that figurative language was used to describe a primeval event, and that original sin can be traced back to the beginning of time.

How does natural law call homosexuals to chastity? Natural law indicates that homosexual acts do not lead to procreation, but I’m not sure where you’re getting a call to chastity from that. The fact that homosexual acts are outside the norm isn’t a call to chastity either. Some sex acts committed by heterosexuals are outside the norm as well, and do not lead to procreation. Outside the norm does not in and of itself mean “wrong”, it just means fewer instances. That’s not the same as a Divine law saying that something is a sin.

Civil law is changed constantly, if you agree with the change it’s “progress”, if you disagree with the change it’s “activism”.

We are all united and are descended from an original pair we call Adam and Eve.

Natural law - states what is natural and unnatural. We do not do the unnatural. By extensions we do not engage in homosexual acts even if we want to because they are disordered.

Heterosexuals who are outside natural law is also a problem. It is not a case of two wrongs make a right or because some fail it now justifies others.

 

[buffalo]

There are health risks to heterosexual sex, cigarette smoking, drinking and a host of other behaviors. That hasn’t changed the fact that ALL those behaviors are legal.

Again, doesn’t make it right.

Let us look at this another way.

If because of the health costs of cigarette smoking we all now have to pay a cigarette health tax would you be for it?

 

[mkingdomlvr]

We are all united and are descended from an original pair we call Adam and Eve.

Natural law - states what is natural and unnatural. We do not do the unnatural. By extensions we do not engage in homosexual acts even if we want to because they are disordered.

Heterosexuals who are outside natural law is also a problem. It is not a case of two wrongs make a right or because some fail it now justifies others.

I’m sorry, but I’m not a literal interpreter. I do not believe that there were two people named Adam and Eve that were the first people on the planet and lived in a nice little garden, and nowhere in my Catholic education was I required to do that.

The “disordered” term is Catholic teaching, and there’s no argument there. However, to stretch natural law into a call to chastity is misrepresentation. Natural law merely defines what is the norm and what is outside the norm. Gay people are less than 10% of the population, which by definition would place them outside the norm. Outside the norm does not mean “wrong” in that context, it simply means “fewer”.

Heterosexuals who are outside the norm are not a problem, except for religious prohibition. They are “fewer” which is not the same thing.

 

[buffalo]

The conclusions are different when one looks at statistics going back to 1970. They show a steady increase in divorce prior to legal gay marriage.

But, how about Massachusetts? Are Catholics divorcing because gays can get married?

I would vote for the repeal of no-fault divorce. It has been devastating to the family.

 

[buffalo]

Makes one wonder how people know their discernment of natural law is correct. (If natural law even exists.)

It is really easy with homosexual acts. The male is not made to enter the excretory area of another male. It is that simple and common sense.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I would vote for the repeal of no-fault divorce. It has been devastating to the family.

Ok, I think I get it now. You want a Catholic country with all laws based on the religious teachings of the Catholic Church, am I correct?

That’s an entirely different argument. That would involve repeal of the First Amendment and replacing it with a law defining the US as a Catholic country subject to the Pope.

I hope you’re a patient person.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

It is really easy with homosexual acts. The male is not made to enter the excretory area of another male. It is that simple and common sense.

and yet it happens…

It happens less frequently, but it still happens.

 

[buffalo]

I’m sorry, but I’m not a literal interpreter. I do not believe that there were two people named Adam and Eve that were the first people on the planet and lived in a nice little garden, and nowhere in my Catholic education was I required to do that.

The “disordered” term is Catholic teaching, and there’s no argument there. However, to stretch natural law into a call to chastity is misrepresentation. Natural law merely defines what is the norm and what is outside the norm. Gay people are less than 10% of the population, which by definition would place them outside the norm. Outside the norm does not mean “wrong” in that context, it simply means “fewer”.

Heterosexuals who are outside the norm are not a problem, except for religious prohibition. They are “fewer” which is not the same thing.

Then you would be a Protestant who believe in private interpretation.

You should find out what the constant teaching and belief of the Catholic Church is.

No - natural law is higher than that.

THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
[1954](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1954.htm’) Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5 [1955](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1955.htm’) The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8 [1956](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1956.htm’) The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9 1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.
[1958](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1958.htm’) The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11 [1959](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1959.htm’) The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
[1960](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1960.htm’) The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[buffalo]

Ok, I think I get it now. You want a Catholic country with all laws based on the religious teachings of the Catholic Church, am I correct?

That’s an entirely different argument. That would involve repeal of the First Amendment and replacing it with a law defining the US as a Catholic country subject to the Pope.

I hope you’re a patient person.

Why - no-fault divorce was the law of the land.

But yes - I would like a Catholic Country. The Catholic proposition is the best for a healthy society.

The 10 Commandments were foundational to our country. Laws were based on them. They were good laws and promote harmony between individuals, families and society as a whole. They give it the best chance for long term survival.

Our country has a law against a state religion. However, we need the steady guide of Catholicism in influencing government and the public square.

In social justice issues it is still the leader. The Dems have confused themselves and now advocated all the pro-death issues. They have moved away from natural law.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Then you would be a Protestant who believe in private interpretation.

You should find out what the constant teaching and belief of the Catholic Church is.

No - natural law is higher than that.

THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
[1954](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1954.htm’) Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5 [1955](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1955.htm’) The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8 [1956](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1956.htm’) The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9 1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.
[1958](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1958.htm’) The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11 [1959](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1959.htm’) The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
[1960](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1960.htm’) The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

That will certainly come as a shock to the good Sisters that taught me in grammar school, HS and college!

Your reference for natural law is religiously based, not neutral. I was looking at natural law as a neutral, differing from Divine Law, my mistake.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Why - no-fault divorce was the law of the land.

But yes - I would like a Catholic Country. The Catholic proposition is the best for a healthy society.

The 10 Commandments were foundational to our country. Laws were based on them. They were good laws and promote harmony between individuals, families and society as a whole. They give it the best chance for long term survival.

Our country has a law against a state religion. However, we need the steady guide of Catholicism in influencing government and the public square.

In social justice issues it is still the leader. The Dems have confused themselves and now advocated all the pro-death issues. They have moved away from natural law.

I understand your position better now. Your real argument is not just with gay marriage, but with a host of other things that are considered sinful in Catholicism but are legal in American society.

I can respect that, but I still believe that it’s very unlikely that such a thing will occur.

 

[WillieWonka]

I would vote for the repeal of no-fault divorce. It has been devastating to the family.

I acknowledge you would vote against no-fault divorce. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the Swedish divorce rate had been moving up long before legal gay marriage. It continued after legal gay marriage. If anything, that is evidence gay marriage had no effect on divorce.