Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[Alisa]

Really, SHW…what alarmist thinking. If anything, our American society is becoming more accepting of different faiths and points of view. Live Catholic, vote Catholic, set a good example. And if you feel you must, demonstrate publicly. As long as our democratic process is allowed to continue, I doubt that we Christians will have to worship in catacombs or anything that wild!

Alisa

 

[sedonaman]

… Our country was founded on this singular principle enumerated in the bill of rights within our Constitution. The tenth being most important stating that all other powers (freedoms, rights) are reserved to the individual. This was something that religious and secular educated men once agreed upon.

You might have free will as a religious concept and choose to do right or wrong, but there is no individual “right-to-choose” in secular law.

The word “choose” does not appear in the Constitution except in Amendments XII and XX which deal with “choosing” a president and vice-president. As further evidence that the so-called individual “right-to-choose” is bogus, judges ruled that parents don’t have a right to choose to opt their kids out of homosexual indoctrination or “playing Muslim” in public schools. Nor do they have a “right-to-choose” which school they can send them to.

 

[sedonaman]

… If anything, our American society is becoming more accepting of different faiths and points of view.

Do you believe that all points of view are equally valid?

 

[SHW]

Neither “rule” and that is the point I am trying to make. Each side respects the others choice or tradition and the right to choose differently. The use of civil law to enforce a belief, choice or tradition on someone else results in the other person to be deprived of the God given right of to choose. Our country was founded on this singular principle enumerated in the bill of rights within our Constitution. The tenth being most important stating that all other powers (freedoms, rights) are reserved to the individual. This was something that religious and secular educated men once agreed upon.

I simply cannot see our Founding Fathers believing and endorsing sodomy, abortion, etc. as “rights” in the “Bill of Rights.”

 

[fix]

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism…

 

[PJM]

=jjdrury81;5033603]I am a Catholic. And I believe that Gay Marriage, as a civil institution, should be legal in the United States of America.

It is abundantly clear that secular society has a view of marriage that is vastly different than the Church. God is not brought into many marriages. People marry and divorce at will. People carry infidelity in their minds and bodies.

Marriage, as a civil institution, is a contract. It is no different than a contract between a labor union and employer. In other words, it often holds absolutely no spiritual value. God is rarely present. God is not required to be present.

In this context, it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to take part in this institution.

I support the Churches teaching on homosexuality. Even more so, I support the Churches teaching on marriage.

However, if same sex couples want to have a civil marriage that is their right. The Church should not concern itself.

I fear it will not matter to you friend,

The position you approve of is hardly unusual in this day and age, it is however WRONG!

But the views you just expressed at neither Catholic nor Christian!

Sayin “the church should ignore these issues” is only another way of stating THAT GOD SHOULD IGNORE THESE ISSUES!

The position you support is "a-Moral, Immoral, always Gravely disordered and always a grave Mortal, hell sending sin!

Love and prayers friend, because you sure need them!

I doubt that you are a Catholic however if you are, Please do not present yourself for Holy Communion and matters even worse than you have already made them.

 

[sedonaman]

I simply cannot see our Founding Fathers believing and endorsing sodomy, abortion, etc. as “rights” in the “Bill of Rights.”

Fortunately, we don’t have to see it; the burden of proof is the proponents of the above.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

You might have free will as a religious concept and choose to do right or wrong, but there is no individual “right-to-choose” in secular law.

The word “choose” does not appear in the Constitution except in Amendments XII and XX which deal with “choosing” a president and vice-president. As further evidence that the so-called individual “right-to-choose” is bogus, judges ruled that parents don’t have a right to choose to opt their kids out of homosexual indoctrination or “playing Muslim” in public schools. Nor do they have a “right-to-choose” which school they can send them to.

Freedom = choice. The men and women who came here from Europe and elsewhere came to be free to live and be who they were and wanted to be.

 

[SHW]

Really, SHW…what alarmist thinking. If anything, our American society is becoming more accepting of different faiths and points of view. Live Catholic, vote Catholic, set a good example. And if you feel you must, demonstrate publicly. As long as our democratic process is allowed to continue, I doubt that we Christians will have to worship in catacombs or anything that wild!

Alisa

Have you seen any TV lately? Most shows have a homosexual or lesbian character shown in the best light possible while persons who disagree with their lifestyle are shown in the most unflattering manner as bigots or worse. How many persons are actually “married” who are depicted having sex and why are they doing any of this on national TV if we are a “majority” Christian nation? This is why I watch very few shows on TV or watch very few movies unless they are rated “G.”

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08013004.html

Obama’s health plan will dismantle the “Conscience Clause” which gives pharmacists, hospitals, nurses, doctors, etc. the right to not participate in actions that go against their consciences (religious freedom).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-conscience-rulefeb27,0,1515759.story
lifenews.com
/nat5057.html

cc.org/blogs/religious_rights_watch?page=1

You can watch the TV show called “Silencing the Christians” online. It is an eye-opener.

silencingchristians.com/signup.aspx

 

[SHW]

Freedom = choice. The men and women who came here from Europe and elsewhere came to be free to live and be who they were and wanted to be.

Freedom also means taking responsibility to do good. Sin is slavery and ends in the death of the soul. “Dead” souls do not inherit eternal life. (Romans 6:16, 1 John 5:16)

 

[sedonaman]

“…It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power.”

The Tolerance Über Alles Principle

The following is an exchange between author Lawrence Auster (“LA”) and poster "Mark D.” regarding an article city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html by Theodore Dalrymple who observed that the most trivial violation of "political correctness” called down the greatest and most immediate response by British law enforcement, while the most egregious violent crimes went ignored:

Mark D. writes:

May I suggest that, grounded in liberal anthropology, anarcho-tyranny is perfectly consistent, and in fact required …

Liberal anthropology is derived from Nietzsche: it affirms the sovereignty of the individual will, that the individual human will is the highest and best value, and asserts that the individual will is the arbiter of all value. Within society, all individual human wills are considered of equal value, validity, and worth, and there is no principle [e.g., God] by which to discern among them. Society is then a contest of a will to power, of asserting one’s preferences over those of others.

On the “anarcho” side this translates into affirmation of the individual human will over such traditional values as private property, public order, and even human life. If a crime of violence is committed, a conviction may be sustained, but a long incarceration is viewed with suspicion, as the imposition of a collective will over and above the highest good – the individual will that committed the crime. It is not legitimate within a liberal community to assert the communal will over (and) against an individual human will (unless, of course, that individual human will contests the über principle of liberalism itself)…

On the “tyranny” side, it is obvious that the preferences of individual human wills are sacrosanct, such as sexual orientation, lifestyle, dissent, and so forth. Any speech, thought, or action that threatens a protected preference is therefore punished with the utmost severity as a direct threat to the ultimate good – the individual human will (which is above critique). And because the individual human will is the source of all goodness, it cannot be relativized by any “status,” particularly status within a religious or ethnic minority. Those wills in the majority therefore must be restrained, and those wills in the minority must be protected, so that a principle of ABSOLUTE EQUALITY is maintained. In fact, within a liberal society, the fiction is maintained that there is no majority at all; and if a majority is invoked, this claim is condemned, marginalized, or ignored. LIBERAL COMMUNITIES HAVE NO LEGITIMATE MAJORITIES. Liberal communities are merely a collection of individual human wills . . .
In liberal society, human life is not sacrosanct; the human will is sacrosanct. Abortion policy is the perfect expression of this principle.

LA reply:

Very interesting. Human life is something “outside” the self, a “transcendent,” as it were. Since only the immanent self and its desires have value, without reference to anything outside the self, life does not have value.

Also, Mark D. points out to me in an e-mail that this means that “in liberal societies, two principles we take for granted no longer apply: (1) consent of the governed, and (2) rule by majority.”

This is profoundly troubling, and obviously true. It’s just a further application of our understanding that since liberalism says that only the individual and his desires matter, liberalism denies the legitimacy of the nation and its majority culture. But now we see that liberalism also denies the legitimacy of political majorities as well as of cultural majorities. Or, as Mark continues: “A majority party can rule so long as it affirms there is no majority.”

And thus we arrive at the modern bureaucratic state, the ideal of which is the EU, and the current leading examples of which are Britain and France. Since only the individual and his will matter, and all individual wills are of equal value, NO MAJORITY OF INDIVIDUAL WILLS CAN BE ALLOWED TO FORCE ITS WILL ON ANY MINORITY OF INDIVIDUAL WILLS. Therefore the society cannot be ruled on the basis of the consent of the majority, also known as the consent of the governed. **The society must be run by a non-elected instrumentality (i.e., the “intelligent” people such as judges) that is independent of the governed, in order to protect the equality of all individual wills. **

And that’s what you get when you try to force **radical **egalitarianism, which a number of folks here are in favor of.

 

[EnchantedEve]

The United States is a Republic, based on laws, not a democracy, based on men. The Founding Fathers were clear on this matter. See also Aquinas on good and bad forms of government:

3 Good Forms: Monarchy, being best, Republic and Aristocracy
3 Bad Forms: Tyranny, being worst, Democracy, and Oligarchy, these 3 being inversions of the first 3.

Let us not forget the importance of these differences.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Really, SHW…what alarmist thinking. If anything, our American society is becoming more accepting of different faiths and points of view. Live Catholic, vote Catholic, set a good example. And if you feel you must, demonstrate publicly. As long as our democratic process is allowed to continue, I doubt that we Christians will have to worship in catacombs or anything that wild!

Alisa

I agree. If we live Our Faith without compromise we proclaim it even when we are not trying to. Those of us opposed to homosexual “marriage” should remember this. I think the concept of marriage has lost a lot of its substance with the loose attitudes toward divorce, gender roles, hierarchy and traditions that has pervaded all of society as well as with Catholics.

 

[sedonaman]

The United States is a Republic, based on laws, not a democracy, based on men. The Founding Fathers were clear on this matter. See also Aquinas on good and bad forms of government:

3 Good Forms: Monarchy, being best, Republic and Aristocracy
3 Bad Forms: Tyranny, being worst, Democracy, and Oligarchy, these 3 being inversions of the first 3.

Let us not forget the importance of these differences.

Wherever did you get those definitions? If a monarchy is the best, why did the Colonies throw off the monarchy and replace it with a republic?

 

[EnchantedEve]

Wherever did you get those definitions? If a monarchy is the best, why did the Colonies throw off the monarchy and replace it with a republic?

If you look at the post, you will see St. Thomas Aquinas is the source of these definitions. And as you see here, republic is a good form of government, even if monarchy is better. Further analysis would be better for another thread.

 

[SHW]

The United States is a Republic, based on laws, not a democracy, based on men. The Founding Fathers were clear on this matter. See also Aquinas on good and bad forms of government:

3 Good Forms: Monarchy, being best, Republic and Aristocracy
3 Bad Forms: Tyranny, being worst, Democracy, and Oligarchy, these 3 being inversions of the first 3.

Let us not forget the importance of these differences.

A Republic can be legislated into a Democracy. I see it happening right now in the USA. As the good morals of the small majority continue to slide into immorality, we will see more and more immorality legislated as a “right.”

 

[SHW]

I agree. If we live Our Faith without compromise we proclaim it even when we are not trying to. Those of us opposed to homosexual “marriage” should remember this. I think the concept of marriage has lost a lot of its substance with the loose attitudes toward divorce, gender roles, hierarchy and traditions that has pervaded all of society as well as with Catholics.

Yes, actions speak louder than words to the few people who are literally watching “you.” But, this is not enough. We must do more if we desire to keep our religious freedoms intact since they are being eroded right now.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Yes, actions speak louder than words to the few people who are literally watching “you.” But, this is not enough. We must do more if we desire to keep our religious freedoms intact since they are being eroded right now.

Well, is not part of being Catholic proclaiming the Gospel publically?

This was not meant to imply we lay down and play dead to the attacks on our society, far from it. Part of being Catholic is being responsive to the call to fight when it is made. I am just trying to point out that our deeds and actions should be consistent with our words and beliefs.

 

[EnchantedEve]

A Republic can be legislated into a Democracy. I see it happening right now in the USA. As the good morals of the small majority continue to slide into immorality, we will see more and more immorality legislated as a “right.”

Absolutely right, which is why this issue is larger than just marriage. If the government can be given the power, even by the people, to define something to be other than what it is, than the foundation of the law in reality becomes irrelevant, and the people can proclaim 2+2= 6,794.287 if they wished. A government, if in not grounded in firm principals of law, has no logical limit to where its authority and jurisdiction may end. We already have President Obama saying we should find a “legal” means to imprison people before they commit crimes! Where shall this end? When a nation becomes a democracy, it is only a transition to tyranny, and this has always proven true.

John Adams, on Democracy: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

James Madison: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths…”

Good words to remember when we see where our country is headed, and the arguments being made as to why marriage, in any form, is a “right.”

 

[Benadam]

A Republic can be legislated into a Democracy. I see it happening right now in the USA. As the good morals of the small majority continue to slide into immorality, we will see more and more immorality legislated as a “right.”

I notice that a body of law that is balanced and fair doesn’t generally force anyone to violate their conscience.

Remember the Jewish ‘christians’ of the circumcision. The answer to them was something like; “We don’t want to place any more burdens on them ( gentiles)” (pp)

Good laws don’t generally force acts that many feel are wrong. Good law may make certain acts illegal that many don’t feel are wrong.

• A law against stealing another’s property doesn’t cause anyone to have to do something they don’t believe is right to do.
• A law against physically abusing someone who isn’t presenting a physical threat doesn’t cause anyone to do something they think is wrong
• A law against misrepresenting a product for sale doesn’t cause a person to act against conscience.

But the current laws this nation is being asked to pass are putting others in just that position. To the point that it is becoming questionable whether the dignity of conscience will be preserved in the future of this country.