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

[WillieWonka]

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.

Now that’s the smartest thing anyone has said on this thread.

 

[WillieWonka]

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

Those who are not skilled haters are psychopaths? Those who do not actively build up huge reserves of hate are psychopaths?

Bring the little children to us so we may fill them with hate…

 

[buffalo]

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.

What doctrines have changed?

 

[WillieWonka]

What doctrines have changed?

Charging interest on loans. The Church considered any amount of interest, no matter how small, to be immoral. Benedict XIV laid it out in a 1745 encyclical. He even claimed scripture to says all interest is immoral.

 

[edwest2]

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.

Change is not always a good thing. Can you name two Church doctrines that have changed?

You should always be suspicious of anyone on any forum that hides behind a fake name and computer screen. Use the method Jesus told us: By their fruit you shall know them. If you are unsure of any answer, do your own research or talk to a priest.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

In which case, any other “group” (pair) of people could begin petitioning for similar benefits. The benefits do not come first (as a “right”). The benefits proceed from the incentive to develop a heterosexual unit for the purpose of procreation and a stable dual-sex union for posterity. Benefits do not equal rights, and therefore are not universal. The state is not merely rewarding personal relationships. The state is rewarding the dual-sex institution of family. (Never-wed single mothers, for example, do not have the same scope of benefits as married parents would.)

 

[edwest2]

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.

Do you know what you’re saying? “Society tells them there is something wrong with them.”? Why does anyone think that? Do you know? Until 1973, the APA listed homosexuality as a disorder. We, as a society, rely on experts, professionals in all fields, who have taken the time to study people and to draw conclusions based on their research. The Catholic Church has never told Catholics to hate other people. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has never told Catholics to belittle those with Same Sex Attraction.

Black people in America still struggle with huge burdens. In Detroit, where I lived until 2003, black communities are the most segregated anywhere.

I think if you look at the history of gay rights, which celebrated its 40th Anniversary this year, you will see something strange. Homosexuality was removed as a disorder not through honest scientific research but by a vote led by gay activists.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Charging interest on loans. The Church considered any amount of interest, no matter how small, to be immoral. Benedict XIV laid it out in a 1745 encyclical. He even claimed scripture to says all interest is immoral.

Did the Church Change Its Stance on Usury?

 

[Benadam]

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.

You say that as if the word has no other meaning than state benefits. What’s a marriage? A union that the state provides benefits for. Why is a union the state provides benefits for called marriage?

 

[Benadam]

Those who are not skilled haters are psychopaths? Those who do not actively build up huge reserves of hate are psychopaths?

Bring the little children to us so we may fill them with hate…

No, you did. I just pointed it out. The foundation of conscience and therefore the ability to feel guilt is established when a person is able to put themselves in another’s shoes. To be able to say sincerely; “I wouldn’t want to be treated that way so I wouldn’t treat anyone that way.” You mentioned, as a matter of significance people who are unable to see themselves in others.

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.

I begin with your use of the word ‘hate’. A hater. I define that as someone who wishes ill on other’s.
So people like that who in addition can’t see themselves in other’s are psychopaths.

Frankly, you are connecting the concepts of hate and tolerance inappropriately when you imply that one always means the other. That’s the bias you bring to the discussion. If one refuses to call homosexuality a ‘good’ they are intolerant because they are a hater.

I was just using a discreet and perhaps humorous method of showing how biased your thinking on this matter is.

 

[Benadam]

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.

Is it good to ask someone to accept a lie?

Like an overweight person who wants people to say they are fit and healthy?

Is this the reason we should say that SSA is in fact a functional submission to the law that enables a safe environment to reproduce and raise the next generation?

I can almost accept* that* argument.

I can’t accept the argument that the obese person isn’t obese nor the argument that SSU’s are the same as the pairbond nature developed for the requirenments of reproduction…

This law is called the ‘pairbond’. SSU’s are a functional use of that law?

 

[WillieWonka]

Did the Church Change Its Stance on Usury?

"I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.

II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small;

1. First of all, show your people with persuasive words that the sin and vice of usury is most emphatically condemned in the Sacred Scriptures; that it assumes various forms and appearances in order that the faithful, restored to liberty and grace by the blood of Christ, may again be driven headlong into ruin.

Vix Pervenit
Pope Benedict XIV
1745
papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14vixpe.htm

Note the link you provided completely ignores this encyclical.

 

[WillieWonka]

No, you did. I just pointed it out. The foundation of conscience and therefore the ability to feel guilt is established when a person is able to put themselves in another’s shoes. To be able to say sincerely; “I wouldn’t want to be treated that way so I wouldn’t treat anyone that way.” You mentioned, as a matter of significance people who are unable to see themselves in others.

I begin with your use of the word ‘hate’. A hater. I define that as someone who wishes ill on other’s.
So people like that who in addition can’t see themselves in other’s are psychopaths.

Frankly, you are connecting the concepts of hate and tolerance inappropriately when you imply that one always means the other. That’s the bias you bring to the discussion. If one refuses to call homosexuality a ‘good’ they are intolerant because they are a hater.

I was just using a discreet and perhaps humorous method of showing how biased your thinking on this matter is.

I haven’t said anything about tolerance, and you introduced psychopaths. If you want to say somehting about either, go ahead.

So, do we gather up the little children and teach them to fill up up on a great big meal of good old Christian hate?

If so, why?

What does one gain by fostering hate?

 

[WillieWonka]

Is it good to ask someone to accept a lie?

Like an overweight person who wants people to say they are fit and healthy?

Is this the reason we should say that SSA is in fact a functional submission to the law that enables a safe environment to reproduce and raise the next generation?

I can almost accept* that* argument.

I can’t accept the argument that the obese person isn’t obese nor the argument that SSU’s are the same as the pairbond nature developed for the requirenments of reproduction…

This law is called the ‘pairbond’. SSU’s are a functional use of that law?

1. It is not good to ask one to accept a lie. However, in order to identify a lie, one must know the truth. Where there is disagreement about the truth, it is difficult to demonstrate a lie.
2. I have no idea what you mean by, “a functional submission to the law that enables a safe environment to reproduce and raise the next generation.” What does that mean?
3. I’m not sure what argumant you accept when you say, “I can almost accept that argument.”
4. Feel free to tell the fat guy he is a slob.
5. I agree SSU’s are not the same as the pairbond nature developed for the requirenments of reproduction. Who said they reproduced?
6. The law in question is called “civil mariage.” It may or may not be used for pair bonding.

 

[buffalo]

"I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.

II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small;

1. First of all, show your people with persuasive words that the sin and vice of usury is most emphatically condemned in the Sacred Scriptures; that it assumes various forms and appearances in order that the faithful, restored to liberty and grace by the blood of Christ, may again be driven headlong into ruin.

Vix Pervenit
Pope Benedict XIV
1745
papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14vixpe.htm

Note the link you provided completely ignores this encyclical.

Better?

The Red Herring of Usury

 

[Benadam]

1. I have no idea what you mean by, “a functional submission to the law that enables a safe environment to reproduce and raise the next generation.” What does that mean?

Wouldn’t the law developed by nature that caused the behaviors that formed civil society be a higher law than civil law?

 

[WillieWonka]

Better?

The Red Herring of Usury

No. In fact that guy is terrible. It is painful to read such drivel.

The pope spoke clearly. Read what he said. He condemned receiving any interest. He said scripture said the same thing.

But note the strategy here. People are trying to explain away a change in doctrine. This is exactly what I expect with birth control and abortion. Eventually someone will start writing silly articles telling future folks how the current prohbitions against birth control and abortion didn’t really mean what they say

They will tell folks that in the fullness of time and with the expanded understanding provided by both science and mature faith, today’s teachings really don’t mean what they say. Then they will quote people from 2078, 2156, and 2389 to support their position. When someone says doctrine has changed, they will holler, “Red Herring!”

Just read what the pope wrote and speak for yourself.

 

[buffalo]

No. In fact that guy is terrible. It is painful to read such drivel.

The pope spoke clearly. Read what he said. He condemned receiving any interest. He said scripture said the same thing.

But note the strategy here. People are trying to explain away a change in doctrine. This is exactly what I expect with birth control and abortion. Eventually someone will start writing silly articles telling future folks how the current prohbitions against birth control and abortion didn’t really mean what they say

They will tell folks that in the fullness of time and with the expanded understanding provided by both science and mature faith, today’s teachings really don’t mean what they say. Then they will quote people from 2078, 2156, and 2389 to support their position. When someone says doctrine has changed, they will holler, “Red Herring!”?

Just read what the pope wrote.

Usury

 

[WillieWonka]

Wouldn’t the law developed by nature that caused the behaviors that formed civil society be a higher law than civil law?

1. A pair bond is called a bond because it is observed in nature, not because it is read in an unwritten law.
2. Rproduction is not a rquirement for civil marriage. All couples are treated alike regardless of intent or abilty to reproduce.
3. Since rhere is no single definition of marriage, the truth of that definition can’t very well be avoided like the plague.
4. The term “pair bond” didn’t come into usage prior to 1900. So, we didn’t always call anything a pair bond.
5. Civil marriage law isn’t contingent on anything. It is whatever the legislature and governor say it is, consistent with state and federal constitution.
6. Perhaps there is a law higher than civil law. Fine with me. In that case, I’m arguing for SSM in the lower law. That’s the civil law that requires $25, birth certificates, two witnesses, and allows a guy in an Elvis suit to conduct the ceremony.

 

[WillieWonka]

Usury

Sorry. I read two of your blind links and they were terrible. That’s it. If you have something to say, then say it yourself.

Until then, Just read what the pope wrote. It’s not difficult. He was very plain.