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

[WillieWonka]

gearhead;5603439:

So… in this thread so far we’ve had denial

of freedom called freedom, hate called love and harm called good.

I don’t know whether all the contributors to the thread have or have not argued well, but I don’t see that “black has been called white.” Nor do I see “hate” on the thread. You may interpret disagreement with a lifestyle to be “hate,” but that’s not a common understanding of the word.

I think we heard about skilled and discriminating haters, hating the sin a person commits, and somehow managing to keep that hate from dripping onto the person. I’m still not sure why anyone would want to build up such a huge reserve of hate. And I doubt they can keep all that hate from getting loose.

 

[Benadam]

Exactly how is the community being “excluded” in either of these cases?

 

[Benadam]

So… in this thread so far we’ve had denial

You think that because distinguishing acts from being seems impossible. A utilitarian outlood on human existence tends to put the gift on par with the giver, or above the giver.
It’s really not difficult from the eyes of a parent watching one of their children slip into destuctive behavior. It’s not a confusing concept to people who are able to see themselves in others. Like a bad habit a good one becomes second nature too.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

You think that because distinguishing acts from being seems impossible. A utilitarian outlood on human existence tends to put the gift on par with the giver, or above the giver.
It’s really not difficult from the eyes of a parent watching one of their children slip into destuctive behavior. It’s not a confusing concept to people who are able to see themselves in others. Like a bad habit a good one becomes second nature too.

I don’t think it’s impossible, because I have met people that are capable of it-but I can tell you that I’ve come in contact with more people that have not been able to make that distinction between hating the person and hating the act.

 

[buffalo]

What a load of garbage. IOW, we’re “free” to do what you think we ought to do. That’s not freedom at all.

So… in this thread so far we’ve had denial of freedom called freedom, hate called love and harm called good. Here’s a tip: if you’re trying to sway me to your way of thinking, dishonest tactics will not make your argument more convincing.

I’m still trying very hard to keep giving the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re arguing in good faith from a position that you really do think is right, and that you really don’t realize the folly in the arguments you’re presenting, but stuff like this makes it very, very difficult for me to keep that up.

If your position is really based in good and truth, then you can present it honestly. If any of the people here had said something like, “we realize that banning same-sex marriage causes temporal harm, but we think that this is outweighed by spiritual benefit” and were able to support this in a rational way, so be it. We’d probably end up agreeing to disagree, but that’s where it would end. But don’t tell me that black is white and expect me to accept it.

Yeah - I figured this would cause some uncomfortablitly.

 

[edwest2]

Elizabeth502;5603505:

gearhead;5603439:

So… in this thread so far we’ve had denial

of freedom called freedom, hate called love and harm called good.

I think we heard about skilled and discriminating haters, hating the sin a person commits, and somehow managing to keep that hate from dripping onto the person. I’m still not sure why anyone would want to build up such a huge reserve of hate. And I doubt they can keep all that hate from getting loose.

I was listening to a priest on Catholic radio talk about all the personal emotional and financial harm he had caused his parents before coming to Christ. They still loved him. The he came to Christ, realized the error of his ways and sought God. He’s now a priest.

Peace,
Ed

 

[gearhead]

Ok, I’m saying ‘you’ exclude the community in your arguments. Isn’t your position focused on the rights of individuals?

No, it’s not. It includes both the individual and the community.

Isn’t ours a defense of human society?

No, it’s a defense of your ideology.

I’m saying your argument has little concern for the good of the larger community. How you are doing that?

By protecting the people in it and by protecting families. I’m not sure why this wouldn’t be enough for you.

I don’t know except that your view too intensely focuses on the experience of being an individual and the social environment that forms the individual is blurred.

I disagree. I think the social environment is very important; I think we just value different aspects of it.

It has a significant painfull efffect on real people not necessarily negative . You don’t address the concepts you attach to ‘real’ people. ‘Human coupling’ the human family’ the young. Not much SSM offers those. This is what i mean about excluding society from your defense of these things.

What painful effect does same-sex marriage have, and on which real people? Be specific.

That’s what you say when we say you are doing that. We say it causes harm.

Again: what harm?

You don’t include justifications that serve the common good.

You can’t be serious. I base my position on same-sex marriage on the fundamental principles of morality and the rule of law; if these things don’t serve the common good, I don’t know what does.

You resort to ad hominem statements that the common good we speak of is just a good for catholics. Nothing to substantiate that we are doing that.

Nothing except a tendency to force the Church’s position on people who don’t agree with it.

You talk about how banning SSM causes harm but nothing really to back that up except pain relative to certain individuals or situations. Harm to the community is excluded in your argument.

First off, why don’t you consider pain to inviduals to be pain to the community? A community is a collection of individuals.

Second, what do you think would constitute “harm to the community”?

Sure. Register in your parish. Get active.

Actually, if I were to follow the anti-same-sex marriage campaign’s example, I’d do it by going through secular law. After all, you’re not content to keep your objections to same-sex marriage in your parish, are you?

You know, you are refering to the Catholic Church. Most people feel perfectly within their bounds to peer at, comment, and decide the proper end of the Catholic Church. That door hasn’t swung our way in ages. They aren’t even members! At least we are member of the societieties we live in. Aren’t we? You really do seem to expect catholics to not allow their ‘catholicism’ , our identity, to shape ‘our’ ‘this’ culture.

I meant something a bit different: not just negative comments, but actually using the law to compel your actions. For example, why exempt the Church from employment standards legislation? Why not use secular law to open up the priesthood to women and homosexual men? That’s the sort of thing I mean about opening up that door.

 

[WillieWonka]

You think that because distinguishing acts from being seems impossible. A utilitarian outlood on human existence tends to put the gift on par with the giver, or above the giver.
It’s really not difficult from the eyes of a parent watching one of their children slip into destuctive behavior. It’s not a confusing concept to people who are able to see themselves in others. Like a bad habit a good one becomes second nature too.

Perhaps it’s not dificult for the skilled hater. I suppose the problem is with all those unskilled haters who are encouraged to build up hate by the skilled haters. They might not have the second nature of the skilled hater and just decide to go kill someone because they are unable to see themsleves in others.

 

[edwest2]

First of all, Christians have been mislead by a carefully managed and sophisticated propaganda campaign:

massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/overhauling.html

It was designed to engineer consent. To get you to say yes. But the Church’s position is clear. It will be destabilizing because every other sexual orientation will want their rights, including bisexuals, polygamists (referred to as ‘polys’) and others. Plans are already being made by some of the same individuals involved in a social engineering program to attempt to destroy the family which began a little over 40 years ago. It was called the Sexual Revolution.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Peace,
Ed

 

[WillieWonka]

First of all, Christians have been mislead by a carefully managed and sophisticated propaganda campaign:

massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/overhauling.html

It was designed to engineer consent. To get you to say yes. But the Church’s position is clear. It will be destabilizing because every other sexual orientation will want their rights, including bisexuals, polygamists (referred to as ‘polys’) and others. Plans are already being made by some of the same individuals involved in a social engineering program to attempt to destroy the family which began a little over 40 years ago. It was called the Sexual Revolution.

Peace,
Ed

Of course there has been a campaign for homoexual acceptance. It’s well organized and executed, and it has been wildly successful.

The Church does oppose it, but given time, the acceptance of homosexuality by Catholics will rival acceptance of artificial birth control by Catholics, something else opposed by the Church.

The acceptance of both is not based on theory, but on people’s observation that each benefits somebdy while harming nobody.

 

[1catholic]

Of course there has been a campaign for homoexual acceptance. It’s well organized and executed, and it has been wildly successful.

The Church does oppose it, but given time, the acceptance of homosexuality by Catholics will rival acceptance of artificial birth control by Catholics, something else opposed by the Church.

The acceptance of both is not based on theory, but on people’s observation that each benefits somebdy while harming nobody.

Acceptance by ppl who call themselves Catholic. The Church doctrines never going to change, no matter how hard ppl campaign :slapfight:

 

[gearhead]

Acceptance by ppl who call themselves Catholic. The Church doctrines never going to change, no matter how hard ppl campaign :slapfight:

The Church’s doctrines may not change, but its approach to issues does.

Personally, I’d settle for the Church treating same-sex marriage like it treats civil divorce, contraception, or other “vital” matters of faith where the Church doesn’t try to impose its will on non-Catholics.

 

[1catholic]

The Church’s doctrines may not change, but its approach to issues does.

Personally, I’d settle for the Church treating same-sex marriage like it treats civil divorce, contraception, or other “vital” matters of faith where the Church doesn’t try to impose its will on non-Catholics.

I don’t think the church has the right to interfere with ppl’s private lives, but as a citizen of my country, I also want the best for my country. I don’t want the state to decide who walks around as a “married” couple. that is NONE of the states business. But the state shouldn’t give benefits to couples which intrinsically are incapable of reproducing (ie benefiting the state). Let them get married by which ever religion will marry them. Let them get visiting rights or other rights that don’t perse cost the state. BUT they should NOT get anything beyond that as those benefits should be saved for couples which can procreate.

here is a good, SECULAr, article from MIT that highlights the legal case against gay marriage: tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

 

[Shredderbeam]

I don’t think the church has the right to interfere with ppl’s private lives, but as a citizen of my country, I also want the best for my country. I don’t want the state to decide who walks around as a “married” couple. that is NONE of the states business. But the state shouldn’t give benefits to couples which intrinsically are incapable of reproducing (ie benefiting the state). Let them get married by which ever religion will marry them. Let them get visiting rights or other rights that don’t perse cost the state. BUT they should NOT get anything beyond that as those benefits should be saved for couples which can procreate.

here is a good, SECULAr, article from MIT that highlights the legal case against gay marriage: tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Legally, it IS the state’s business.

Benefits aren’t given to encourage couples to procreate, benefits are given in recognition of lifestyle changes a couple goes through when they marry (moving in together, combining incomes, sharing expenses, etc.).

 

[Benadam]

Perhaps it’s not dificult for the skilled hater. I suppose the problem is with all those unskilled haters who are encouraged to build up hate by the skilled haters. They might not have the second nature of the skilled hater and just decide to go kill someone because they are unable to see themsleves in others.

Yeah but there are only 1 out of 25 people who are psychopaths.

 

[Benadam]

No, it’s not. It includes both the individual and the community.

 

[RoncalliM]

At some point in everyone’s life they need to sit down with a gay person with whom they are close. You will hear some of the most heartbreaking stories and emotions ever. These people have been handed HUGE BURDENS. Society tells them that there is something wrong with them. They grow up to their friends making f@g jokes. We need more compassion in this world.

 

[Benadam]

Legally, it IS the state’s business.

Benefits aren’t given to encourage couples to procreate, benefits are given in recognition of lifestyle changes a couple goes through when they marry (moving in together, combining incomes, sharing expenses, etc.).

People can move in together, combine incoms, share expenses if they want to without the state’s involvement. What reason would the state have for regulating those arrangements?

 

[Shredderbeam]

People can move in together, combine incoms, share expenses if they want to without the state’s involvement. What reason would the state have for regulating those arrangements?

Having the state call it “marriage” provides them with certain tax exemptions, benefits, and so on. Like I said, the state benefits are given in recognition of these lifestyle changes, as the couple begins to function more as a single entity rather than two individuals.

 

[WillieWonka]

Acceptance by ppl who call themselves Catholic. The Church doctrines never going to change, no matter how hard ppl campaign :slapfight:

I acept people at their word when they say they are Catholic. Is that a flawed method? Is there a better one? If so, what is it?

Church doctrines have changed in the past. They can do it in the future.