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.
buffalo said:
Let me try again. Natural law is unchangeable.

My duaghters have been exposed to gay pride in high school. Just two weeks ago my son was surprised that his visit to a theme park was gay day.
Click to expand...
OK. So, Natural Law is unchangeable. What does it have to do with beating, inducing suicide, and shooting gays?

Your daughters were exposed to gay pride? What does that mean? What happened? How was an act shoved in ther faces?

And your son was surprised gays were at a theme park? So what? Does he think they should stay away from theme parks? What did that have to do with him? Was an act shoved in his face? Who else was at the theme park? Do the rest of us owe your son some particular deference?

I was exposed to Catholicism today. Two Catholic priests were at a pizza joint I go to. They were even dressed as Cathlic priests. Does that mean Catholicism was shoved in my face?
 
Benadam said:
I think the real issue is the effort to eradicate morality opposed to homosexuality. That is shoving morals down peoples throats. All the while crying that morals are being shoved down throats.

The violence against gays is irrelevant to the discussion and is an appeal to false compassion. Anyone who believes homosexual acts are immoral lack compassion?

As far as immoral acts go and disordered passion I’ve got eneogh of my own to be concerned about what others do. OTOH civil society exists because of marriage between a man and a woman. This is the reason the state protects it. What reason would the state have to protect same sex unions?

You know how you feel when someone is lying to you? To accuse people of shoving morals down throats, while cleverly and covertly shoving morals down throats gets some people ticked. Manipulating the minds of people who don’t know better is eneogh to rile the tempers of some of those same people who know just eneogh.
Click to expand...
Well, one of the reasons folks want to eradicate morality opposed homosexuality is because this morality has been used as a justification for beating gays. So, false compassion? I don’t think so. It’s a very practical and a valid motivation.

Beliefs can have a powerful effect on behavior. The treatment of Jews at the hands of Christians over the centuries is a prime example. Certainly one wouldn’t fault changing those beliefs for the practical reason of survival.

But in general, how do we detemine when something is being shoved down our throats? How do we recognize advocacy that is not being shoved down our throats? It’s a catchy phrase, but how do we recognize it?
 
WillieWonka; [QUOTE said:
5584559Well, one of the reasons folks want to eradicate morality opposed homosexuality is because this morality has been used as a justification for beating gays. So, false compassion? I don’t think so. It’s a very practical and a valid motivation.
Click to expand...
The proper course of action is to condemn those who disobey the moral teaching not to condemn the moral teaching.
Beliefs can have a powerful effect on behavior. The treatment of Jews at the hands of Christians over the centuries is a prime example. Certainly one wouldn’t fault changing those beliefs for the practical reason of survival.
Click to expand...
Another case of the same. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But in general, how do we detemine when something is being shoved down our throats? How do we recognize advocacy that is not being shoved down our throats? It’s a catchy phrase, but how do we recognize it?
Click to expand...
First I have to state that it is not immoral to force morals. I am for shoving certain morals down the throats of people who disoby them. That kind of thing is said about morals in question.

Having said that,

Morals are shoved down throats when it is forced in or out of the culture by violence or deception. It is recognized when the will is forced to obey by violence or deception.

When people are demonized for what they believe. Example: A person who believes homosexual acts are immoral is a person who has no compassion for homosexuals.
 
WillieWonka: Beliefs can have a powerful effect on behavior. The treatment of Jews at the hands of Christians over the centuries is a prime example. Certainly one wouldn’t fault changing those beliefs for the practical reason of survival.

Benadam: Another case of the same. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

WillieWonka: You contend attitudes towards Jews should have been ignored while simply condemning the actions taken against them?
 
buffalo said:
The act is.
Click to expand...
Obviously, I disagree, but in the same vein as your dichotomy between the act and the actor, let me put it this way:

The type of discrimination you’ve proposed in this thread is inherently harmful. Whether it’s actually evil depends on the motives behind it.

I sometimes find it very difficult sometimes not to call the Church’s actions on the matter of homosexuality evil. However, I have hope that they’ll treat the “sin” of homosexuality in the same way that they treat the “sin” of, say, schism. Just as the Church is now apparently content to allow Anglicans freedom of religion under secular law and in some cases actually engage in dialogue with them, I have the strong hope that while the Church may always regard homosexuality as a sin, at some point they’ll stop interfering in secular matters and in the lives of non-Catholics when it comes to issues surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

So… short version: no, I don’t think that Catholicism is intrinsically evil, but some pretty awful things have been done in its name lately.
 
Benadam said:
When people are demonized for what they believe. Example: A person who believes homosexual acts are immoral is a person who has no compassion for homosexuals.
Click to expand...
It’s not the belief that’s immoral, it’s the action. It’s a strange sort of compassion for homosexual people that works to harm them.
 
**
WillieWonka: You contend attitudes towards Jews should have been ignored while simply condemning the actions taken against them?
The subject of your post was behavior not attitude. For a moral authority to not speak up against attitudes that foster disrespect is wrong
Nevertheless, I’m saying that behavior, especially in the past, right or wrong, is irrelevant to the questioning of a particular moral judgement.
 
Other_Eric said:
The teaching of the Church on this matter is clear and has been repeated innumerable times. Let us pick just one example where this teaching is not only reiterated but takes clear, unequivocal form in the Church’s prohibition on the ordination of any who experience same-sex attractions regardless of behavior.

The Church teaches that “[t]he priest is above all a servant of others, and he must continually work at being a sign pointing to Christ, a docile instrument in the Lord’s hands.” (1) The individual with same-sex attractions is unable to achieve this ideal by virtue of the utter depravity inherent to his condition. " Such people, by virtue of the impulse, regardless of whether it is acted upon or not lack “affective maturity” and are psychologically incapable of ministering to their flock." (2) The desire, even to serve the Church is therefore utterly depraved.

The man who possesses same-sex attractions has one choice and one choice only: to accept the redemptive and healing graces won by Christ on the Cross and thereby become heterosexual. Should he remain obstinate, his every action becomes twisted and evil.

(1) Benedict XVI. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation: Sacramentum Caritatis. Rome: February 22, 2007. §23, #2. Available online at: vatican.va/holy_father/be…the_Sacraments

(2) Grocholewski, Zenon. Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. Rome: Congregation for Catholic Education, November 4, 2005. §1. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/co…uzione_en.html
Click to expand...
Anyone have a dead horse I can borrow? Anyways… OtherEric, lets try not to confuse Church teaching with personal interpretation. You quote two tiny sentences and then make a (ridiculous) conclusion that every desire of someone with same sex attraction is depraved, including a desire to serve the Church.

Lord forgive me, but I think I’m going to go buy myself a lawnmower.
 
Benadam said:
You seem to mean you want the faithfull of the Catholic Church to stop playing a role in shaping culture. The Church is the faithfull.
Click to expand...
Here’s what I mean; take it as you will: I want the Church (and the faithful) to approach this issue with consistency, logic and common sense.

To begin with, it makes no sense to invoke your view that homosexuality is a sin in your stance on same-sex marriage. In this choice, homosexuality and homosexual acts are a sunk cost: if the couples in question have the right to marriage, they’ll engage in them. If they don’t have the right to marriage, they’ll engage in them anyway. In economic terms, the “sin” of homosexuality represents a sunk cost and is therefore an invalid basis for decision-making.

Also, the way the Church has treated same-sex marriage is disproportionate to other issues. For example, take the law surrounding charity. Here in Canada, the law specifically recognizes “the promotion of religion” as a charitable purpose; I suspect that the US and most other countries have something similar. “Promotion of religion” doesn’t just include the activities of the Catholic Church; it also includes the activities of all other religions.

Effectively, if a mosque or a Pentecostal church made it their mission to recruit Catholics away from their faith (and some do), not only would the government permit this, they would actually encourage it by granting charitable status to the endeavour and giving tax credits to the people who fund it.

It makes perfect sense that that the Church would consider *this *to be a matter of vital importance… however, I have yet to hear a single peep from the Church on this issue. Do you think that same-sex marriage is a greater threat to the Church or the faithful than organized movements aimed at mass apostasy? They exist, but the Church makes no attempt to get secular law to conform to its views on that matter.

Given the fact that the Church is apparently happy to give free reign to non-Catholics on much more important issues, I think it’s reasonable to ask for similar treatment of the issues of same-sex marriage and homosexuality, especially since the Church’s positions and actions as of late have been fundamentally harmful to the lives of people.

And it’s not like there aren’t many examples where the Church has done just that: take civil divorce. While the Church has very deeply-held views on the subject and speaks out strongly against it among Catholics, it hasn’t attempted to have its views on divorce enshrined in secular, civil law for quite some time now… at least in this society.
Benadam said:
What I hear is that you don’t discount the possibility that it isn’t, but in your view, it is.
Click to expand...
No, what I’m saying is that I have hope that the Church leadership will show more compassion on this issue than they currently do. The fact that they engage in bad acts now does not necessarily mean that they must always engage in bad acts.
 
Benadam said:
The subject of your post was behavior not attitude. For a moral authority to not speak up against attitudes that foster disrespect is wrong
Nevertheless, I’m saying that behavior, especially in the past, right or wrong, is irrelevant to the questioning of a particular moral judgement.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you’re wrong about the subject of my post. Here’s what I wrote and what you replied. Both behavior and beliefs are featured in my post…I specifically asked about changing beliefs.

WillieWonka: Beliefs can have a powerful effect on behavior. The treatment of Jews at the hands of Christians over the centuries is a prime example. Certainly one wouldn’t fault changing those beliefs for the practical reason of survival.

Benadam: Another case of the same. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So, Do you contend beliefs about Jews should have been ignored while simply condemning the actions taken against them?
 
Benadam said:
gearhead;5584678:
The sin of schism is treated as schism, the sin of homosexuality is treated as a sexual act. The doctrins of the homosexual movement are treated like a schism with the same doctrins would be.

You seem to mean you want the faithfull of the Catholic Church to stop playing a role in shaping culture. The Church is the faithfull.
What I hear is that you don’t discount the possibility that it isn’t, but in your view, it is.
Click to expand...
Church faithful are welcome to play a role in shaping culture. So is everyone else. It’s a political struggle.
Click to expand...
 
mkingdomlvr said:
How many homosexual sex acts do you see on a daily basis? Are there gay people in your town having sex out on park benches or something? We don’t even have that down here where the weather is nice. :eek:
Other than that rather unlikely situation, I don’t know how any homosexual is shoving their “deviate act” in anyone’s face.
Gay people are not being discriminated against, nor are they victims of violence because they’ve been caught in the act. They suffer because straight people can’t seem to stop thinking about gay people having sex and anytime they encounter someone they think is gay they react to their own feelings about the sex.
Click to expand...
:compcoff:

well…not too long ago, i was at the park with my daughter…and, everywhere, there were kids playing…on the field, soccer and kites…on the swings… on the playground…you know … a park…where kids were just being…kids…and me and my daughter went for a walk down the levy ((theres a bike trail there too)) and on the way back I happened to notice a straight couple ((a man and a woman)) had laid out a blanket, out to the side, pretty much out of view…but they were laying there and cuddling…when we got back to the main part of the park…right smack dab in the middle of the field, where all the kids were playing and having to run around them even, were two dudes, one laying his head in the others lap, the other leaning forward and they were making out…straight up french kissing, tongues n all that…

first let me say, myself personally, if i had a boyfriend, husband, watever, i wouldnt find it appropriate to ‘making out’ infront of kids…

apparently some other straight people wouldnt either, because they took the care to set themselves away from the general crowd to be discrete.

I seriously had an inner battle to stop myself from walking up to these guys and saying ‘excuse me, but could you tone it down, or move it down the field a little’. part of why i didnt is because i was horrified at the possiblity that they’d stand up and shout at me ‘hatemonger’ or something crazy…

and if your wondering how the other parents took it, it was the same way. more than once another parents eye caught mine and we exchanged a glance of acknowledgment to eachothers plight…

I do not think of gay sex at the thought of gay people, but seeing stuff like this puts ti right in my face! …actually, im sure NO ONE WANTS to think of gay sex…maybe if they ((i know thats a generalization)) acted a little more…idk…conservatively with their sex lifes…

if you look at a straight parade, idk, lets say the macys parade…you get floats…dancers…singers…idk that kinda stuff…but anytime you see a ‘gay’ event, ie pride parade, or ANYTHING gay in san francsico, you are going to see naked men, strapped in chaps…sex toys…CRAZY STUFF…its the gay communitys fault that people look at them the way they do, because of how they portray themselves…why does everything have to be so sexually oriented??

((oh yah, i forgot, we already established the only way they are any different from us is their sexual lifestyle- so now for the month of june we get to celebrate this nasty ****))
WillieWonka said:
Actually, I disagree. The state doesn’t say civil marriage is anything. The only requirement is $25, birth certificates, and two witnesses. That’s it.

**So, civil marriage is whatever the couple says it is. Anything at all. Business, love, sex, drugs, something to do, way to win a bet, honor god, hatred, envy, greed, happiness, therapy, money, religion…/**QUOTE]

yes, and now the gay community would like to reduce ‘marriage’ to the same level. If its partner rights the gay community seeks, then by all means grant it to them under a civil union with the equality of a marriage, but the term ‘marriage’ is beyond them, beyond the government, beyond all of us. it was here before us, and will be here long after us, it is consecrated by God and we just CANT TOUCH THAT…I can see how somone outside of the church would think they could, due to lack of respect and belief, but then I wonder, if one doesnt BELIEVE in marriage, and what it is, and they think they can ALTER it, because, God doesnt exist or is irrelevant, or flat out wrong, then why do they pursue the term so???
WillieWonka;5583659:
Does natural law kick the snot out of people, induce suicide, or shoot people?
Click to expand...
Willie…Willie…Do you know they showed the original Willie Wonka on TV yesterday?? that movie still trips me out…

more than once you and another dude on here referred to the beating, suicide…shooting of gay people…but you fail to recognize that these acts happen on the other side as well…

"Hamburg man raped boy, 17, police say
From our news staff
Hamburg, PA - A Hamburg man gave a 17-year-old boy beer and vodka before raping him, authorities said Friday.
According to court records, John S. Shrawder, 44, of the first block of South Fourth Street, attacked the boy in Shrawder’s home about 8:25 p.m. Thursday.
Hamburg police arrested him Thursday night in his residence.
Shrawder was arraigned before Senior District Judge John W. Miller in Reading Central Court on charges of rape and corrupting minors.
He was committed to Berks County Prison in lieu of $200,000 bail.
According to court records:
The victim reported he was drinking in Shrawder’s residence while Shrawder showed him how to play piano.
Shrawder grabbed the victim, put him in a chokehold, pulled him onto a bed and raped him.
The victim grabbed Shrawder’s pants from the floor and ran to a relative’s house, where he called police.
Police found the boy’s pants and underwear in Shrawder’s residence.’

Oh- but I’m sure your not talking about these homosexual individuals…it must be the other kinda homosexual…
Click to expand...
 
Charlotte408 said:
:compcoff:

Willie…Willie…Do you know they showed the original Willie Wonka on TV yesterday?? that movie still trips me out…

more than once you and another dude on here referred to the beating, suicide…shooting of gay people…but you fail to recognize that these acts happen on the other side as well…

"Hamburg man raped boy, 17, police say
From our news staff
Hamburg, PA - A Hamburg man gave a 17-year-old boy beer and vodka before raping him, authorities said Friday.
According to court records, John S. Shrawder, 44, of the first block of South Fourth Street, attacked the boy in Shrawder’s home about 8:25 p.m. Thursday.
Hamburg police arrested him Thursday night in his residence.
Shrawder was arraigned before Senior District Judge John W. Miller in Reading Central Court on charges of rape and corrupting minors.
He was committed to Berks County Prison in lieu of $200,000 bail.
According to court records:
The victim reported he was drinking in Shrawder’s residence while Shrawder showed him how to play piano.
Shrawder grabbed the victim, put him in a chokehold, pulled him onto a bed and raped him.
The victim grabbed Shrawder’s pants from the floor and ran to a relative’s house, where he called police.
Police found the boy’s pants and underwear in Shrawder’s residence.’

Oh- but I’m sure your not talking about these homosexual individuals…it must be the other kinda homosexual…
Click to expand...
Of course those actions happen on the other side. But would you ascribe them to Natural Law?

Here’s what Buffalo said in discussing such beatings and steps to stop them.:

*“Right from the playbook - an appeal to emotion. So you think that the “safety” you seek will actually make you safer? Do you think **natural law **acts that way?” *

Is the Catholic poistion that gays are beaten because of Natural Law? Boys are raped in Hamburg because of Natural Law? I doubt it.
 
WillieWonka said:
Of course those actions happen on the other side. But would you ascribe them to Natural Law?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand your question…I’ve never really heard of ‘natural law’ or know what you mean by it in this sense…like, i would think that natural law would be that…a man and a woman go together, because, if it were left to nature, then the only way they could reproduce would be, with a man and a woman…

so, if we ‘naturally’ just left society, without any laws from the state, do you mean that this would be ok?? I dont think so…maybe this isnt what you mean tho …
 
Charlotte408 said:
I’m not sure I understand your question…I’ve never really heard of ‘natural law’ or know what you mean by it in this sense…like, i would think that natural law would be that…a man and a woman go together, because, if it were left to nature, then the only way they could reproduce would be, with a man and a woman…

so, if we ‘naturally’ just left society, without any laws from the state, do you mean that this would be ok?? I dont think so…maybe this isnt what you mean tho …
Click to expand...
Perhaps Buffalo will explain what he means. It’s a very basic teaching of Catholicism.
 
ok, this is gonna sound crazy…but…naturally

ok, so in this instance a man, rapes a younger man. I’d say this is unnatural and the older man is disordered…seriously sick in his head. one would also say that hes a homosexual but I’m not trying to say it to be mean, its a fact, hes sick in the head, and hes a homosexual. its unnatural…

but, if it was a grown man, raping a younger woman…it wouldnt be nuthin’ nice, but…it’d be natural…Cavemen dragged chicks around by their hair and I’m sure rape was common for a long time…thats mans impulse…to procreate…by any means…so even tho its nothing pretty…at some point its a fact of life…

is that what you mean??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top