Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope

[aragonjohn1]

He is the representative of Christ on earth for a reason : )

GOD BLESS

 

[Suudy]

Every single one of these items has been covered before.

1. Being gay is not natural.
   ~ Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Two points. First, the argument against gay marriage is not about “**eing gay”. Rather, the statement should be “Gay marriage is not natural”. Second, this isn’t what the Church means by “natural”. Natural, in this sense, doesn’t mean occurring in nature, but rather speaks to the purpose of a thing. For what purposes does marriage exist? It is about more than just love and sexual activity.

This link was posted before and it is a spectacular discussion:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155&http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=601746&page=2

1. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay …
   ~ … in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

I don’t see the Church making this argument.

1. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
   ~ People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

The Church hasn’t suggested anything like the response. The question isn’t about “legal standing” or ability to “sign a marriage contract”. Rather, it is about providing legitimacy to disordered behavior.

1. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all …
   ~ … women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

The Church isn’t making this argument.

1. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed…
   ~ … the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

The example given probably isn’t even considered a marriage by the Church. A “just-for-fun” marriage implies a lack of intent, which is necessary for a valid marriage. And the argument isn’t about the sanctity of individual marriages, but about marriage itself. And yes, divorce and remarriage are also destructive to marriage.

1. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
   ~ Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.

Again, this goes back to the nature of marriage. An individual defect, such as infertility, does not change the nature of the person nor the natural end of marriage.

1. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children…
   ~ … since straight parents only raise straight children.

The Church is not making this argument.

1. Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
   ~ In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

The opposition is solely based upon religion. There are reasoned, philosophical arguments against gay marriage (see the link above).

1. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
   ~ That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

No opponent of gay marriage says “[c]hildren can never succeed without a male and female role model”, at home or outside of the home. Rather, the argument has been that the best chances for success come from stable homes with a father and mother.

1. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society…
   ~ We could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Society isn’t founded on cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. The foundations of society are the principals that hold it together, such as charity, justice, responsibility, mercy, truth, etc. Gay marriage is in opposition to truth, since it is contrary to the very nature of marriage.**

 

[Rocky24]

Pope Benedict is not afraid to speak the truth! He is right in saying that gay marriage is a threat to humanity. Gay marriage ruins the traditional family and is an abomination in the eyes of God.

 

[mdmpsyd]

“Threat to humanity”??? 1-5% of gay men and lesbian women seek marriage…1-5% of the gay population…the gay population is estimated from 2%-10% of the entire population of adults…seems really strange to claim two gay men living in civil marriage or two women living in civil marriage of such a small sub group would threaten humanity.

Seems like the “threat” is fear mongering…but them…I’m not Catholic.

The only possible way that same sex marriage could pose a threat to “traditional” marriage is that it could lead some, who are in traditional marriages, to ask themselves, “gee, why didn’t I have the courage to marry the person that I was destined to marry?”

 

[LiseTravis]

To me this is a perfect example as to why medical insurance should not now, nor ever should have been, provided through an employer. All medical insurance should be obtained privately. Insurance provided through an employer came about only because of the old practice of going to the “company doctor”, then unions lobbied for employer tax credits for offering that service. The whole practice snowballed from there to the severely flawed system we have today. Isn’t sad that the system wasn’t fixed back in 2010 when we had the chance.

:clapping:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

LINK

Bring on the self-righteous Pope-chastising and finger-wagging, World.

Blessings on the beloved head of our Holy Mother Church.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, have mercy on us and save us.

Amen.

 

[endoentropism]

Society isn’t founded on cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. The foundations of society are the principals that hold it together, such as charity, justice, responsibility, mercy, truth, etc. Gay marriage is in opposition to truth, since it is contrary to the very nature of marriage.

I thought “marriage” was a context-specific sociological construct; I was not aware that marriage had an intrinsic or objective meaning. When was this ground-breaking repudiation of modern linguistics at last proven?

e:
I’m reading through that secular defence of traditional marriage you posted – it isn’t very good. I am surprised that Harvard phd candidates would publish work this sloppy. Specifically, when it isn’t begging the question, it’s making appeals to authority; when it isn’t making appeals to authority, it’s describing slippery slopes. In short, it’s quite bad. You could apply their very-same arguments to miscegenation laws (even though they try to dissociate miscegenation laws from gay marriage laws).

However, I’m sympathetic to the notion of a traditional definition of marriage. It seems like the simple solution is for the State to get out of the marriage game altogether. The State can enforce civil unions to ensure equitable property rights and adherence to civil law, while the Church handles the sacred. If a gay or secular straight couple want a civil union for legal or economic reasons, so be it – if they want a sanctified marriage (as recognized by a congregation), they must obey the tenets of the faith.

 

[Suudy]

I thought “marriage” was a context-specific sociological construct; I was not aware that marriage had an intrinsic or objective meaning. When was this ground-breaking repudiation of modern linguistics at last proven?

This isn’t an issue of linguistics. The argument is about the word “marriage” (or it’s numerous other translations, synonyms, etc). It is about the actual state of being married.

e:
I’m reading through that secular defence of traditional marriage you posted – it isn’t very good. I am surprised that Harvard phd candidates would publish work this sloppy. Specifically, when it isn’t begging the question, it’s making appeals to authority; when it isn’t making appeals to authority, it’s describing slippery slopes. In short, it’s quite bad. You could apply their very-same arguments to miscegenation laws (even though they try to dissociate miscegenation laws from gay marriage laws).

Appeals to authority aren’t invalid. When was the last time you proved Maxwell’s equations? Yet every electronic gadget you use was designed based upon those equations, which are taken on authority that they are valid.

Now, the appeals to authority are to ones with significant credibility. Namely, Aquinas. The paper refers to strong arguments made by others, and need not recreate them in order to be a strong analysis in its own right.

 

[endoentropism]

This isn’t an issue of linguistics. The argument is about the word “marriage” (or it’s numerous other translations, synonyms, etc). It is about the actual state of being married.

I know, I was being snarkier than I should have.

Appeals to authority aren’t invalid. When was the last time you proved Maxwell’s equations? Yet every electronic gadget you use was designed based upon those equations, which are taken on authority that they are valid.

They aren’t inherently invalid but they are highly suspect. The “appeals to authority” I was more specifically referring to were the ones along the lines of, “Marriage has traditionally meant X and so that’s why it should mean X.”

The trouble is the definition of marriage has changed over time, even in Western society. It still means very different things in other societies. Aquinas is an unconvincing philosopher for a secular debate on same-sex marriage because he was writing in, and for, a society which is wholly different from our own (he would obviously have great value for a religious debate).

e:
I think same-sex marriage is too often framed as an assault on religion when the reality is very, very few gay couples would want to bend the Church to their will and somehow force a religious ceremony on an unwilling congregation (and they would be wrong to do-so). Same-sex marriage is first and foremost about equal rights under civil law; changing ecumenical law is not a fight that will be fought in secular courthouses.

But that’s why I say Aquinas isn’t the best authority for a secular debate on same-sex marriage, because he was writing in (and for) a time when the Church was the singular organizing principle in every person’s life. That is no longer the case. Gay marriage is primarily about legal security and an end to discrimination in the context of a secular society, it is not about smashing the Church and its traditions.

 

[Suudy]

They aren’t inherently invalid but they are highly suspect. The “appeals to authority” I was more specifically referring to were the ones along the lines of, “Marriage has traditionally meant X and so that’s why it should mean X.”

They are only suspect insofar as the credibility of the authority.

But the kinds of arguments for which you give as an example aren’t arguments from authority. They are reasons to consider before taking action. As Chesterton said, “Don’t ever tear a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

But they go beyond any such arguments. Citing Aquinas, Laqueur, etc are not cases of this kind of argument.

The trouble is the definition of marriage has changed over time, even in Western society. It still means very different things in other societies.

They don’t deny this. What they do cite is that marriage has always been between men and women.

Aquinas is an unconvincing philosopher for a secular debate on same-sex marriage because he was writing in, and for, a society which is wholly different from our own (he would obviously have great value for a religious debate).

Nonsense. The philosophy of Aquinas has a much broader application that religious arguments. While his ultimate end was to provide rational grounds for the a belief and worship in God, the means by which he does so are not religious in nature. Read the first part of Summa Theologicae, and there is not one appeal to anything religious in nature. And from this, he derives the conjugal nature of marriage.

 

[endoentropism]

I’ll have to give a more thorough read/response tonight (or the next few days depending on work) – if only to for the mental exercise.

So… Forthcoming!

 

[Busy_bee]

It is quite unfortunate that the egregious nature of the act itself becomes almost secondary in these arguments that have become more political and social in nature, rather than spiritual. However, let me lend some clarity to this contentious debate by providing the following list:

Designated elements of Paraphilia: Sadism, Transvestitism, Bestiality, Masochism, Exhibitionism, Voyeurism, Urophilia, Emetophilia, Corprophilia, Fetishism, and, among others, Homosexuality, yes…Homosexuality.

Homosexuality may have become a cause celebre among the elites, but it it what it is , regardless of it’s note at this particular moment in time. It is a disordered state of being. That we are at the stage of cultural degradation where sanctioned homosexual union is even being debated is tragic. It is very sad, and very disturbing.

I was afraid no one will realise that!

 

[Busy_bee]

In a related thread where you defended homosexual marriage, I offered a CAF tract on Gay Marriage where it discusses Catholic arguments for and against gay marriage.

Then in this thread on the Pope’s admonition on gay ‘marriage’ being a threat to humanity’s future, you take an opposite view, providing a refutation of “myths” against gay ‘marriage,’ which again leaves a reader the impression of your undeniable support for this social experiment deemed against the public and social interest of marriage, against Scripture and Tradition, and against natural law principles. Each of what you raised in the canned list are actually found in gay apologetic sites, raised in this forum many times over; you need only to refer to the threads, some of which are recent.

When misinterpretations or dismissal of settled doctrine and authentic teachings are being propagated by members in the forum especially when they claim to be Catholic, no less in a Catholic forum at that, one should not be surprised when one receives challenges or questions on faith identification.

With no animosity or mean spirited intention, I hereby repeat that your views are not Catholic. In fact, they are anti-Catholic. You can run your comments by Father Vincent Serpa or any staff apologist on this site if anything that I indicated herein is false.

Not only is your support for gay ‘marriage’ transparent, but your view on another non negotiable issue of abortion is also suspect, your own words here:

If in the above quote you are saying you do not agree with the Catholic teachings on abortion and same sex ‘marriage’, and if you support contraception and the formation of female priests, there is a deep chasm between your identified faith and a number of core beliefs.

It is not suprising when a poster who identifies as a Quaker, or one from ELCA, Metropolitan Church, or dissenting groups such as New Ways Ministry or Dignity group that passes for Catholic but are in fact not, come right out to speak for same sex ‘marriage.’ These denominations endorse SS"M" for whatever reason the religious leaders and their followers have come to believe.

You may be a Catholic by baptism as a child or conversion later in life but you hold a set of beliefs that is not in accordance with Catholic teaching. Please don’t waste your ‘sincere’ pity on me. Save it for the future of the children in this country if same sex ‘marriage’ is legalized across the land.
,

You are also assuming that the poster is not a liar. I can type catholic, doesn’t mean I am. Chedner3 isn’t catholic just cause she says so. As long as it can be doubted, her word is not good enough.

And, Chedner3, if you are cathoilc, then SHAME ON YOU. FOR IT IS THINKING SUCH AS YOURS THAT GOT YOUR COUNTRY WHERE IT IS NOW. I would have said I pray you live to see the harmful effects of your evil statements (that’s what they are) but I don’t think you’ll be around long enough to see it in full effect. However, you must know that you are not just anti-catholic, but anti-christian, for you disregard the teaching of Christ.

I know you will have a lot of abuse for me, but God rebuke you!

 

[Busy_bee]

The sexual behaviors of Greece and Rome occured for centuries and was the “norm”…the fall of Rome and Greece DID NOT OCCUR due to it’s acceptance of homosexual behaviors among it’s populace…

What did you expect the effects of relativism and throwing all that is sacred to the dogs to show itself in 10 years?
You amaze me. It was not the singular act, of course, but the ideologies that were promoted that led to the fall of these empires.
The arguments from divorce, abortion, gender separation partnerships GSP (my more preferable term for gay marriages), contraception, and all the rest stem from defective consciences that have rationalised things to a point where it seems like there is no reason why a person cannot do whatever he wants. The problem is that a society cannot thrive with everybody doing whatever they want.
So get ready, because GSP is not the last bus stop. USA is going on a train ride and the last bus-stop will be the end of America as you know it.
The problem is, you won’t see it now, or in ten years, or 20, no, more like hundred years…

 

[Busy_bee]

Africa and the middle east are saying: WEEP NOT FOR ME, BUT FOR YOURSELVES AND YOUR CHILDREN.

One doesn’t need to be highly educated to see that all these arguments started with a foot-in-the-door approach. Now the rest of the body is coming in.

Also, it doesn’t take a genius in christianity to see that we are in a war, not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and power. Words are good, but prayer is best.

Pray, Americans, pray christians, that as God rescued Lot, he may find many righteous men and rescue America, for the blindness of these people is spiritual and cannot be cured by arguments alone, however sound.

As God lives, there is hope!!!

 

[Publisher]

What did you expect the effects of relativism and throwing all that is sacred to the dogs to show itself in 10 years?
You amaze me. It was not the singular act, of course, but the ideologies that were promoted that led to the fall of these empires.
The arguments from divorce, abortion, gender separation partnerships GSP (my more preferable term for gay marriages), contraception, and all the rest stem from defective consciences that have rationalised things to a point where it seems like there is no reason why a person cannot do whatever he wants. The problem is that a society cannot thrive with everybody doing whatever they want.
So get ready, because GSP is not the last bus stop. USA is going on a train ride and the last bus-stop will be the end of America as you know it.
The problem is, you won’t see it now, or in ten years, or 20, no, more like hundred years…

It’s easy to “predict” a century from now…neither of us will be there to say “See…I told you.”…those kind of predictions are easy to make…easy to embrace…they simply cannot be proven…it makes good “apologetics” however…just no substance behind the “warnings”.

 

[endoentropism]

I guess I’m still trying to wrap my head around how it’s any business of a Catholic what a non-Catholic does with their life.

Gay marriage isn’t an assault on Catholic marriage.

 

[Busy_bee]

It’s easy to “predict” a century from now…neither of us will be there to say “See…I told you.”…those kind of predictions are easy to make…easy to embrace…they simply cannot be proven…it makes good “apologetics” however…just no substance behind the “warnings”.

Exactly! A warning cannot be a warning anymore if the unwanted event has already taken place or is sure to take place. It’s kind of like saying: Smokers are liable to die young.
It is a warning, but not all smokers get the lung cancer that may cause them to die young. However, it is a warning and should be taken seriously for the probability that it just might happen!

The effects of legalising GSP will only show slowly, like erosion slowly removes the top soil. You won’t know it till it’s done.

Also, for those who can’t see how the legalisation of GSP marriages affects catholic marriage, I think the focus is on the society. Marriage (sacramental or not) is the process by which the family (the nursery of society is formed). If the society is affected by unjust and wrong laws, what makes you think catholic marriages will suffer no harm? Every member of society will suffer the consequences, even though they do not realise the cause of their trouble. Divorce will be on the rise, and of course, nore attempts to “annul” marriages. The amount of times I’ve heard of annulments on CAF alone has made me wonder. When something is legalised, there is an increased probability of it being socially acceptable. More and more people will think, All I ask is a divorce, abortion, a chance to share my “love” with my niece, afterall, aren’t I free? Everyone has the RIGHT to be happy.

It will be harder to have properly formed consciences to even make the rightb decisions about “cathoilc marriage”. It is a culture that is spreading its tentacles here, and not just some “gay right”. A culture of I can do whatever I like as long as it doesn’t SEEM to hurt anybody. Whatever I think is right is right, and as long as it does not affect you, leave me alone.
But the truth about humanity and society is that whatever one does affects all. That is why there are laws and societal values. These are supposed to be generally accepted morals (by a large number of the members) and this is the reason for its enforcement-the fact that they all agree on these morals.
In a situation where not everybody agrees, (like 60%, 40%), it is wrong to bind those with the higher percentage to endorse the others. That is what these gay rights people are doing.
A right is not something you get to choose irrespective of anyone else, no, it is something that everyone WITHOUT EXCEPTION needs to live and contribute positively to the society. Sex is not a right. Procreation is not a right. Why on earth should homosexuality be a right?
Are humans now to be classified based on their sex life? Are we all to be reduced tothe level of plants and animals? There is far more to humanity than whether or not he has sex and with whom he chooses to have it.
To even mention gay rights is cause for pitiful laughter. It’s like there is nothing else to worry about now, so lets try gay rights!
It is wrong to force acceptance of one’s way of life on anyone, but what will happen when GSP is legalised? Freedom of opinion will go down the drain.
“I don’t want my children learning about gay people”. Sorry, she is going to learn it, whether you like it or not. People feel helpless, religion is tossed in the corner and subdued and confined to private bedrooms.

 

[incense]

Gay marriage isn’t an assault on Catholic marriage.

Yes, it is.

 

[tm30]

I guess I’m still trying to wrap my head around how it’s any business of a Catholic what a non-Catholic does with their life.

Gay marriage isn’t an assault on Catholic marriage.

There’s no such thing as gay “marriage”. It’s as logical as “Christian Atheism”. Society reserves the right to protect the Truth from deceptions like this.