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

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mkingdomlvr said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was taught by good sisters too. 🙂 They did not teach me I could interpret Scripture myself.

Something legal does not make it good or right.

Worth a listen:
** Moral Theology and Homosexuality**
 
buffalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is it your contention that which is used to excrete should be used for no other purpose?
 
WillieWonka said:
Is it your contention that which is used to excrete should be used for no other purpose?
Click to expand...
It is. The anus cannot produce offspring.

Now you can roll out all the nonsense about how this is used for this reason and that…
 
Natural Law

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
 
buffalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, our laws prohibit stealing, murdering (not necessarily killing, however), and, in some cases, lying. Congratulations, three commandments were made into laws. (Of course, we could have easily come up with these rules ourselves.) Now, where can I find the other seven in our laws?
 
Oreoracle said:
As far as I can tell, our laws prohibit stealing, murdering (not necessarily killing, however), and, in some cases, lying. Congratulations, three commandments were made into laws. (Of course, we could have easily come up with these rules ourselves.) Now, where can I find the other seven in our laws?
Click to expand...
It appears lots of folks figured those three out for themselves before they even heard of the Ten Commandments. I bet even the Hebrews had those three before Moses gave them the tablets.
 
buffalo said:
I was taught by good sisters too. 🙂 They did not teach me I could interpret Scripture myself.

Something legal does not make it good or right.

Worth a listen:
** Moral Theology and Homosexuality**
Click to expand...
I don’t interpret Scripture myself. I simply accept that the ancients used stories to explain their history. Literal interpretation can get you into quite a twist, as in-if Adam and Eve were the only two humans, wouldn’t their children have had to commit incest in order to procreate? And since we only know of 2 boys, where did they get the women from?

Never said something legal made it good or right. Porn is legal, and because I do not believe it is good or right, I do not purchase or view it. Alcohol is legal, but because I know that the abuse of it is not good or right, I do not abuse it.

I don’t need something to be made illegal to know that it is not good or right.
 
mkingdomlvr said:
I don’t interpret Scripture myself. I simply accept that the ancients used stories to explain their history. Literal interpretation can get you into quite a twist, as in-if Adam and Eve were the only two humans, wouldn’t their children have had to commit incest in order to procreate? And since we only know of 2 boys, where did they get the women from?

Never said something legal made it good or right. Porn is legal, and because I do not believe it is good or right, I do not purchase or view it. Alcohol is legal, but because I know that the abuse of it is not good or right, I do not abuse it.

I don’t need something to be made illegal to know that it is not good or right.
Click to expand...
Many people do need the strength of law to validate their own beliefs. They don’t like the fact that competing views and ideas exist.
 
WillieWonka said:
Many people do need the strength of law to validate their own beliefs. They don’t like the fact that competing views and ideas exist.
Click to expand...
That has always indicated to me that their foundation in their faith is not very solid. If you need civil law and the fear of fines or imprisonment to do the right thing, your moral compass needs work.
 
WillieWonka said:
  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.
Click to expand...
  1. Civil law doesn’t have to precisely define a purpose for civil marriage. The purpose is implied within the law itself.
  2. Again, particular laws may be overturned, such as what happened in CA.
  3. No individual or group is free to assert rights they choose. (I thought that was your position, and it’s incorrect.) Rights are subject to the rights of others – such as rights of adults being modified by rights of children.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
  1. Civil law doesn’t have to precisely define a purpose for civil marriage. The purpose is implied within the law itself.
  2. Again, particular laws may be overturned, such as what happened in CA.
  3. No individual or group is free to assert rights they choose. (I thought that was your position, and it’s incorrect.) Rights are subject to the rights of others – such as rights of adults being modified by rights of children.
Click to expand...
  1. As the law is written, the purpose of ciil marriage is whatever the couple chooses. It can be kids, companionship, money, sex, drugs, religion, etc.
  2. I completely agree laws can be overturned. It happened in Californoa, and we can probably expect a few more twists to that one before a clear majority emerges. We can also look forward to state constitutional changes to get rid of same sex marriage restrictions. This will happen as the demographics of the electorate change…
3.Of course we are all free to assert whatever rights we choose. All that means is claiming the right and saying we have it. Anyone can do it. It happens all the time. We can watch it. If a particular view being asserted prevails in the legislature or courts, then it becomes a legal right. Watch this: I have a right to free Cokes on Monday afernoons.
 
WillieWonka said:
  1. As the law is written, the purpose of ciil marriage is whatever the couple chooses. It can be kids, companionship, money, sex, drugs, religion, etc.
  2. I completely agree laws can be overturned. It happened in Californoa, and we can probably expect a few more twists to that one before a clear majority emerges. We can also look forward to state constitutional changes to get rid of same sex marriage restrictions. This will happen as the demographics of the electorate change…
3.Of course we are all free to assert whatever rights we choose. All that means is claiming the right and saying we have it. Anyone can do it. It happens all the time. We can watch it. If a particular view being asserted prevails in the legislature or courts, then it becomes a legal right. Watch this: I have a right to free Cokes on Monday afernoons.
Click to expand...
I want that right too!!!
 
WillieWonka said:
  1. As the law is written, the purpose of ciil marriage is whatever the couple chooses. It can be kids, companionship, money, sex, drugs, religion, etc.
  2. I completely agree laws can be overturned. It happened in Californoa, and we can probably expect a few more twists to that one before a clear majority emerges. We can also look forward to state constitutional changes to get rid of same sex marriage restrictions. This will happen as the demographics of the electorate change…
3.Of course we are all free to assert whatever rights we choose. All that means is claiming the right and saying we have it. Anyone can do it. It happens all the time. We can watch it. If a particular view being asserted prevails in the legislature or courts, then it becomes a legal right. Watch this: I have a right to free Cokes on Monday afernoons.
Click to expand...

1. No, you’re wrong about the purpose of civil marriage. Since it’s granted by the state, the state determines the purpose. That does not negate the freedom of the couple to state & form their own priorities as to purpose, but their personal purpose does not drive civil law. Never has. Never will. If it were only personal, the state would have no interest in formalizing it.​

3. Rights are granted by civil bodies. Even though superficially it may seem as if arbitrary rights are being granted by those who assert such “rights,” unless that right is somehow in the context of that civil body’s (local, state, federal) jurisdiction and the scope of rights expressed by that civil body.​

 
Elizabeth502 said:

1. No, you’re wrong about the purpose of civil marriage. Since it’s granted by the state, the state determines the purpose. That does not negate the freedom of the couple to state & form their own priorities as to purpose, but their personal purpose does not drive civil law. Never has. Never will. If it were only personal, the state would have no interest in formalizing it.​

3. Rights are granted by civil bodies. Even though superficially it may seem as if arbitrary rights are being granted by those who assert such “rights,” unless that right is somehow in the context of that civil body’s (local, state, federal) jurisdiction and the scope of rights expressed by that civil body.​

Click to expand...
  1. OK. Show us where the state tells us the purpose. You are telling us your puropose for civil marriage, but you haven’t offered anything from statute or precedent. Nor is the couple’s purpose grounds for denying marriage. I agree the couple’s purpose does not drive civil law. The state’s purpose doesn’t drive it either, because it doesn’t offer a purpose. The state has absolutely no purpose driven restriction on civil mariage.
  2. I disagree that arbitrary rights are being granted by those who assert the right. They don’t have the power. Gays in Kansas can assert their right to marriage all they want, but they still can’t marry. Nor do I expect many free Cokes on Monday.
 
mkingdomlvr said:
I don’t interpret Scripture myself. I simply accept that the ancients used stories to explain their history. Literal interpretation can get you into quite a twist, as in-if Adam and Eve were the only two humans, wouldn’t their children have had to commit incest in order to procreate? And since we only know of 2 boys, where did they get the women from?

Never said something legal made it good or right. Porn is legal, and because I do not believe it is good or right, I do not purchase or view it. Alcohol is legal, but because I know that the abuse of it is not good or right, I do not abuse it.

I don’t need something to be made illegal to know that it is not good or right.
Click to expand...
Yes - incest was necessary horizontally. Adam and Eve had other children.

You are a great proponent of natural law.
 
buffalo said:
Yes. Between siblings, never between parent and their offspring.
Click to expand...
Ok, there’s where I draw the line. Two non-Catholic homosexuals getting married is the end of the world as we know it but sibling sex is fine???

Actually, isn’t there a passage about Lot’s daughter’s getting him drunk and having sex with him so that they can have kids? Was that OK too? There’s no condemnation of it in the Scripture reference. (Genesis 19: 30-38) Going by literal interpretive standards, if it was ok then, it’s ok now, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top