Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[Acrossthedesert]

The Amish are not marginalized, the choose their way of life. I have no idea why you would include Pentacostals. Perhaps you don’t know what I meant by “marginalized?”

Blacks before civil rights were marginalized. And very much still are.

The civil rights movement began when the first person was enslaved. The indians died off due to exposure to European diseases. (Estimates of >90% died from disease in certain areas). That is why they started importing black slaves to initially mine for gold, and later to produce crops.

There were slave revolts from the first 10 years of captivity. Of course, the white wing of the abolitionist movement didn’t start till organizations such as the Pennsylvania Abolition Society (A Quaker Christian Organization) began in 1784. The struggle took a dark turn after the Civil War in what is called the Nadir, when reconstruction failed and blacks were again brought into servitude through the penal system. In this period, blacks were lynched, beaten and laws were subverted to keep them from voting, holding property, or traveling to any great deal. This was the time of the Klu Klux Klan.

To use the word “marginalized” is in itself a way which marginalizes the actual history of the civil rights movement which was a struggle against slavery.

As for people who prefer the same gender, they were never slaves. Also, for the most part nobody new their preference. In fact, in the Victorian era I doubt anyone even talked about sex. Now, I would imagine that if anyone came out as a polygamist, philanderer, or cross dresser, they would be ostracized from society, and that is exactly what happened to the Mormons. In fact, the Mormons were not allowed to join the Union as the State of Utah till they renounced their polygamy.

This should be a lesson for all of us to learn: The gay marriage issue looks more like the polygamy issue of the 1880’s than to the civil rights movement of the last 400 years.

 

[Bradski]

These do not change the fact that the death of the person was objectively wrong, but the culpability of the agent could vary depending upon motive and circumstances.

Thanks for the link, Peter. I’ll check that out on the weekend at some time. I’m outa time today.

But I’ll say in passing that to class a killing as wrong, there has to be some culpability. I’m not saying that that is the only criterion. It was the only criterion in the example used in the earlier post.

The circumstances? That would, off the top of my head dictate the motive. I’ll need some examples. And the rightness or wrongness? Well, that’s what we’re trying to work out. You can’t use rightness or wrongness as a criteria to discover if something is right or wrong.

Anyway, as Sarah said, this is waaaay off topic. If I have the time I should start another thread. Have a good weekend y’all.

 

[SgtSchultz]

Interesting story. Does that mean you are a Catholic because they specifically match your views?

Not quite. I found that it met many of my beliefs. It was the intellectual history, the thousands of years of philosophy, the fact that it was the original Christian Church, the fact it was the fount of Western Civilisation, etc. Also, I considered myself Christian before choosing to convert specifically to Catholicism. Other forms seemed either too radical and unreasonable or too tied-up with political correctness and relativism. Catholicism seemed moderate yet firmly grounded in tradition and morality more so than the others to me. It was also more consistent. I found it both odd and inconsistent how those same biblical literalists who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old claim that the bread and wine taken at communion are only symbolic.

Could it have happened that you might have found another religion that better matched your world view?

I used to think that. I thought maybe Buddhism would be good, probably because I naively thought one didn’t have to follow rules to be Buddhist. Little did I know it was actually more strict than all forms of Christianity.

Also, I looked at the history of world religions and the types of societies they produced. Only one religion gave birth to Western Civilisation. The rest of the world stagnated. Other countries only started to advance and open up once ideas and tools from nationals of Christian nations (i.e. those that were at one point Catholic) showed up. It takes a belief in a single rational god to progress as a society.

I find that most Catholics, indeed most Christians, were born into the faith and therefore follow the teachings of that denomination. It’s almost: I am a Christian, therefore I believe this. It’s rare to find someone who has firstly developed a set of beliefs outside organised religion and can, I presume in your case as well, say: I am a Christian and I believe this.

Perhaps. But there are people raised Muslims or agnostic/atheist who become Catholic and are more Catholic than those raised nominally as Catholic. My cousin was raised Catholic and I’m more Catholic than she is even though I haven’t completed the conversion process yet.

Well, yes, I tend to agree. I think I mentioned earlier developing a moral outlook from ‘first principles’. By that I didn’t mean in isolation without reference to other ways of thinking. One cannot operate in a vacuum.

Interesting proposition. From whence came these “first principles”?

Right.

It’s like an Engineering professor telling his students to come up with the right formula for building a structurally sound bridge.

They, of course, have to come up on their own and “make their own mind up” about what’s correct…

but if they decide to go with the wrong formula, then, sadly, the bridge is going to collapse.

Sadly, PRmerger, nowadays some actually take what you just said, not as an absurdity, but as an ideal. In some places primary school teachers are using the very process you described above as part of the mathematics curriculum. I kid you not.

mathmagic.ca/2011/12/why-alex-can%E2%80%99t-add-or-subtract-multiply-or-divide/

But that’s really a story for another thread.

Not the point, apparently you lost the thread of the posts. The assertion was that gay people are all in denial about their guilt and justifying their behavior. My response was: no, they aren’t.

Of course, neither of you can prove yourselves one way or another.

 

[SgtSchultz]

This is my opinion as a decades-long observer of gay folks and American culture informed by an educational background in anthropology. Any assumptions in a different direction, are also unsubstantiated by known facts. In any marginalized group of people, usually separated by race, economics or some other factor that makes them identifiable to society, there is rise in drug addiction and violence leading to or stemming from social disruption. When these groups are integrated into the culture, that behavior is lessened considerably.

Really? Was this true in Europe among the Jews long before, up to, and/or during World War II? Among American blacks during slavery or Jim Crow? Is it true among what’s left of the Jews and Christians in the middle east outside of Israel? Your claim just doesn’t hold up.

That applies to everyone. Someone who converts from Protestantism with change from being bound by Protestant morality to being bound by Catholic morality.

There are many different sources of morality available, and people can and do change between the available sources.

Of course, the fact that there are many sources of morality doesn’t mean that all of them are right.

In every case, the culture has DIMINISHED the value of human life, and those same people are now saying that it is the Church which doesn’t respect the dignity of persons because it opposes same-sex marriage.

I had a similar epiphany that was responsible for bringing me to Catholicism as well.

The Amish are not marginalized, the choose their way of life.

As do drug users and violent people. In most cases, no one holds a gun to someone’s head and force them to take or start dealing drugs or join a gang. Such people may have suffered terribly, which is a shame, but to act as if they didn’t play a role in making a free choice is rather naive, not to mention demeaning to their humanity.

Perhaps you don’t know what I meant by “marginalized?”

Blacks before civil rights were marginalized. And very much still are.

Maybe they are in the Middle East and North Africa, where they are still kept as slaves, but certainly not in North America.

Couldn’t agree more. There’s nothing as horrifying as blind faith.

Especially when it’s blind faith in one’s own rightness.

 

[Bradski]

Especially when it’s blind faith in one’s own rightness.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd: Voltaire

1. The rightness or wrongness of the act itself

Very quickly, so that I don’t bark up the wrong tree in replying to this:

I’m using the term ‘immoral’ and ‘wrong’ as being interchangeable. If someone does something wrong, they are ‘doing something immoral’. Acting immorally is ‘doing something wrong’. I can’t conceive of someone doing something wrong that I couldn’t describe as being immoral and vica versa.

Are we on the same page here? I’m not sure we are…

 

[Patavium]

Well, I don’t want to sound rude, But Jesus didn’t come out with any earth shattering pronouncements that a reasonable person couldn’t have decided him/herself. So no, I don’t specifically base them on what Jesus said – I just think that what He said made a lot of sense in light of what I expected to be true in any case.

I recommend you read this statement of yours many times, and just think about what you just said here.

 

[Bradski]

I recommend you read this statement of yours many times, and just think about what you just said here.

Can you give me an example of what Jesus said that would contradict what I suggested?

 

[Acrossthedesert]

I recommend you read this statement of yours many times, and just think about what you just said here.

Patavium is correct Bradski!

Well, I don’t want to sound rude, But Jesus didn’t come out with any earth shattering pronouncements that a reasonable person couldn’t have decided him/herself. So no, I don’t specifically base them on what Jesus said – I just think that what He said made a lot of sense in light of what I expected to be true in any case.

Bradski, you’rer simply deluding yourself again. You grew up in a Christian environment, and now you think you deduced everything from nothing. This is just another God delusion.

Let’s discuss justice in the light of history… shall we? Justice prior to Jesus was something for the citizen, or the elite. Equal rights? Never was this even a thought to Socrates or Plato… no,no, the average person should do as they’re told; only the elite should be in the polis.

Now let’s get serious. God (the saviour) is born in a manger. The king is born where the animal get fed!!! This is earth shattering yesterday and today. Jesus turned the world upside down, and changed how we see ourselves and eachother. “Blessed are those who mourn”? Tell me that the beatitudes don’t confound the world’s thinking.

No let’s get even more serious.

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

That is Earth Shattering, but for people who don’t “get it”, its simply bizarre or mysterious.

The only question I have for you is
"do you come to hear the Gospel and believe?"

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd: Voltaire

Faith is to be sure of the things we hope for and to be certain of things we cannot see.
-Hebrews 11:1

Can you see love? The most joyful people live a life of love; Certain that God will lead them to his glory. The world sees the cup half full or sees the cup half empty, but Amen I say to you my cup is filled to the brim and overflowing, and of this I am certain.

 

[stewstew03]

For a more complete understanding of why relativism is simply a false notion, go to this talk. by Peter Kreeft:

peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism.htm

Huge fan of Professor Kreeft.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The civil rights movement began when the first person was enslaved. The indians died off due to exposure to European diseases. (Estimates of >90% died from disease in certain areas). That is why they started importing black slaves to initially mine for gold, and later to produce crops.

This is both off-topic and incorrect. To get rich, the Spanish started harvesting sugar cane in the Carribbean. Harvesting and processing sugar into the molasses that was shipped back to Europe is a horrible backbreaking job and the Spanish enslaved the natives. But there were way too few Spaniards and the Indians walked away into the jungles and went to live in the mountains.

So they imported blacks from Africa and enslaved them. If they walked away, the Spanish paid bounties to get them back. Slavery spread from the Caribbean to the Southern US, where they found sugar cane would not grow well, but cotton would.

As for people who prefer the same gender, they were never slaves.

Except for gay people who were slaves.

Also, for the most part nobody new their preference. In fact, in the Victorian era I doubt anyone even talked about sex.

There were whole books and articles about it. I recall once reading an excerpt from one that advised young ladies who wished to kiss and hold hands not to do so in the sight of gentlemen. There was quite a lot of talk about Oscar Wilde when he was imprisoned for being gay. So much talk that gay in Victorian times and the attitudes is one of the best–documented in history. In fact, it was during that era that the word “homosexual” was coined, though not in England.

However, your point is well-taken in that being gay was hidden because being known would get you unemployed, rejected by family, imprisoned, beaten up or killed.

This should be a lesson for all of us to learn: The gay marriage issue looks more like the polygamy issue of the 1880’s than to the civil rights movement of the last 400 years.

No, it doesn’t. The Mormons went their own way, built their own culture and succeeded, rarely being killed for being Mormons.

And let’s get away from this idea that there is only one way to use “marginalized.” In population biology there is a term: “dispensable reserve.” The dispensable reserve in a social species is a group of marginalized individuals, comprising a cross-section including male and female, various ages and so forth, that are ejected form the group and live on the fringes of the population.

When you marginalize a group in a culture, they become, to the culture, dispensable. They have less value and so are more easily dismissed and abused. Because we aren’t a rabbit warren, we cannot really export our reserve to the fringes of a central location. So we relegate them to ghettos. Irish Catholics in early parts of American history were a marginalized people. They were ghettoized, not allowed to vote, subject to random attack, vilified in the press and so forth. After decades of absorption tinto the larger chulture, this stopped.

In a few decades, as gay persons are absorbed into the culture, their marginalization will end, as we can observe it ending now, and we’ll have to find a new group to marginalize to maintain the dispensable reserve.

 

[Patavium]

This is both off-topic and incorrect. To get rich, the Spanish started harvesting sugar cane in the Carribbean. Harvesting and processing sugar into the molasses that was shipped back to Europe is a horrible backbreaking job and the Spanish enslaved the natives. But there were way too few Spaniards and the Indians walked away into the jungles and went to live in the mountains.

So they imported blacks from Africa and enslaved them. If they walked away, the Spanish paid bounties to get them back. Slavery spread from the Caribbean to the Southern US, where they found sugar cane would not grow well, but cotton would.

Huh? . No, Julia Mae. He is right, and you are also partially right, and it was not only sugarcane. It was also gold (yes, there is gold in the Caribbean, and also other natural resources), and many other natural resources. No, european diseases contributed to the dead of the natives. No, spaniards committed genocides. In the Caribbean, the spaniard killed all the natives of the Hispaniola island.

The Slaves were added simply, because the natives couldn’t handle the work due to lack of numbers, and unwillingness. Also, natives were SLAVES too for the most part.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I hate that these images come out so big, but I thought in light of this maybe we should table the discussion until the Supreme Court decides whether or not to hear the case which should be this fall. http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/253187_10151091075931347_153830548_n.jpg

 

[JaKael02]

Ok so I know I’m going to open a can of worms. So before my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ start slashing my throat allow me to clarify what I mean.

I have absolutely no issues or problems with people of other beliefs, races, backgrounds or lifestyles. I have an open, loving heart towards anyone.

With that being said; Is it wrong of me not to care about same sex marriage outside of the Church? Meaning, if same sex people who are not Catholic want to get married in a secular place(courthouse, beach, etc) or in another religious institution that allows it. Does that make me less of a Catholic? I’m not asking or even looking for same sex marriage in the Church and have no issue with it not being permitted here. I’m talking about the rest of the world around us.

It’s like saying you know rape is bad, but why do I care if they rape outside of my State? I mean if people who are not Catholic want to rape others in a secular place or in another religious institution that allows it, then who am I say to rape is bad?

[this sounds crazy & stupid = but so does SS marriage for Christians. Why does a Christian support an immoral practice as long as it is outside of the Church? It makes no sense!]

 

[Acrossthedesert]

This is both off-topic and incorrect. To get rich, the Spanish…
.

Read “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong”. High school history is riddled with inaccuracies. If you are referencing a college/university history text, please provide. The Spanish came first for Gold, and the point still stands “the civil rights movement began with the first enslaved individuals”.

Except for gay people who were slaves.

Yes Julia. However, I don’t think they were enslaved because of their sexual preference.

However, your point is well-taken in that being gay was hidden because being known would get you unemployed, rejected by family, imprisoned, beaten up or killed.

No, it doesn’t. The Mormons went their own way, built their own culture and succeeded, rarely being killed for being Mormons.

And why do you think the Mormons ran to Utah? Because they were being killed; in fact Joseph Smith (their so called prophet) was killed in Illinois. **Nobody wanted polygamy, and they fought it and for the most part marginalized the practice so that it only occurs in small pockets in Northern Arizona towns without any marriage licenses granted ** They have their own ceremonies and carry on their own lives without the need of acceptance of the country/state at large. Fine.

And let’s get away from this idea that there is only one way to use “marginalized.” In population biology there is a term: “dispensable reserve.” The dispensable reserve in a social species is a group of marginalized individuals, comprising a cross-section including male and female, various ages and so forth, that are ejected form the group and live on the fringes of the population.

When you marginalize a group in a culture, they become, to the culture, dispensable. They have less value and so are more easily dismissed and abused. Because we aren’t a rabbit warren, we cannot really export our reserve to the fringes of a central location. So we relegate them to ghettos. Irish Catholics in early parts of American history were a marginalized people. They were ghettoized, not allowed to vote, subject to random attack, vilified in the press and so forth. After decades of absorption tinto the larger chulture, this stopped.

Marginalize may work for the Irish, but not at all for the civil rights movement which had to do with 400 years of rape, murder, and slavery. Associating gay marriage with the civil rights movement is a false analogy (a fallacy).

In a few decades, as gay persons are absorbed into the culture, their marginalization will end, as we can observe it ending now, and we’ll have to find a new group to marginalize to maintain the dispensable reserve.

What you see is a group of people who don’t care. It’s not charity, its indifference. Ask them. They’ll tell you, “I don’t care what anybody does, as long as I have what I need.” The gay movement wishes to be absorbed into society, but it is exactly their ideas which tear society apart.

Did you ever consider that homosexuality is actually contrary to community and family? Every ancient society reaches their zenith and then their pride, decadence, and avarice slowly unravel the fabric of society. The gay movement doesn’t spell progress, it spells decline for the West. Are you brushing up on Arabic? Take a look at the fastest growing population…you see they don’t practice birth control or homosexuality. The gay movement does a great injustice to our society.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

We have a duty to oppose laws that legitimize same-sex unions. I just posted this in the other thred. It’s a document all Catholics should read and study.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

in the civil world, marriage is a default set of rules that defines a married couple as an economic unit vis a vis the rest of the world and between each other, regarding property, personal and testate succession.

any lawyer can draft documents for a gay couple that are close to the default marriage rules. very close, but not completely so.

I’d guess that most gay couples want to be treated as any other civilly married couple in that sense.

now, the interesting question is, does the Vatican document require what we work to repeal laws that allow lawyers to set up economic relations that mimic civil marriage? because that would mean barring gays from holding property as joint tenants, or allowing them to make each other heirs, or naming each other as insurance beneficiaries.

Westerby.

 

[markeverett49]

Huge fan of Professor Kreeft.

I like his work too. Concise, clear, clever.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread is now closed. Please remember to stay on the topic of the thread or else start a new thread. Thank you for your cooperation.