Gay Marriage in America

[StAnastasia]

Most compelling; all of it. Thanks for bringing reason back to the table. Glennonite

Lord Devlin’s piece is not compelling, it’s just silly. Most gay people don’t go home and get blind drunk.

 

[Eugenius]

Ah, the ever popular gay marriage on CAF. I didn’t know much about it until I started reading the online discussion groups. Here is what I have observed and learned.

People confuse “holy matrimony” with “civil marriage.” Holy matrimony is understood to be a spiritual joining of a man and a woman for purposes of procreation. There are “unitive” and “procreative” qualities to this union. Be that as it may be, we look the other way when infertile couples or those past childbearing years want to marry because we are nice people and everyone should be able to get married for love, or companionship, or financial advantage, or…well, almost everyone.

Civil marriage includes laws concerning property, rights of survivorship, etc. These are manmade. These laws are particular to time and place and are not universal. Many of these rights can easily be obtained by visiting an attorney and getting a will, power of attorney, etc. You dont have to be married to obtain these, but they are part of the “package deal” you get when you get married. You can leave your property to your long-term same-sex lover, your dog, or even the three women you’ve been fornicating with, and nobody has a legal right to interfere. Heck, nobody will even care because its yours to do with as you please. However, get a license to formally register your relationship with another person of the same sex to get the same benefits and you suddenly are the ruin of society.

Sadly, like everyone else many Catholics only seem to be concerned with the “what’s in it for me” characteristics of civil marriage. Those who take holy matrimony seriously seem to be more and more rare. Someone in another discussion kindly pointed out that “only” 41% of Catholic marriages end in divorce. There is no public outcry that such a large percentage of our “spiritually unified” families are ripped apart by divorce. No uproar that divorced and remarried (adultory) people can even become president of the United States (Ronald Reagan) and flaunt their broken family and sinfullness on the world stage. No large budget or initiative to get no-fault divorce repealed or protect children from licentious public role models…but don’t let someone try to visit their same-sex life companion in the hospital or get health insurance because then children will be harmed and society will crumble (said tongue in cheek, of course).

 

[John21652]

Lord Devlin’s piece is not compelling, it’s just silly. Most gay people don’t go home and get blind drunk.

What a rediculous retort.

If you had read Lord Devlin’s “piece” you’d know very well he was not writing about gay people going home and getting drunk. He was giving an example of when private behaviour becomes of public concern. Most sensible people who can read and comprehend understand what he was on about. Don’t write misleading rubbish.

 

[Wardog]

What a rediculous retort.

If you had read Lord Devlin’s “piece” you’d know very well he was not writing about gay people going home and getting drunk. He was giving an example of when private behaviour becomes of public concern. Most sensible people who can read and comprehend understand what he was on about. Don’t write misleading rubbish.

It only works if I accept your premise that getting blind drunk is the same as gay marriage. I don’t.
But even if I did, I would not want to live in a country where the government felt compelled to regulate what I did in my own home, self destructive or not.

 

[John21652]

It only works if I accept your premise that getting blind drunk is the same as gay marriage. I don’t.
But even if I did, I would not want to live in a country where the government felt compelled to regulate what I did in my own home, self destructive or not.

Your another who doesn’t get the point of Devlin’s argument. Neither my premise, nor Devlin’s, was that getting blind drunk is the same as gay marriage. He may have chosen any example of private behaviour. Maybe if we swap getting blind drunk with drug taking you’ll understand it better. Devlin’s question was rhetorical. Look up what that means. His point was, that private behaviour can get to the stage where it impacts on the public good and so it becomes of public concern.

 

[TMC]

Your another who doesn’t get the point of Devlin’s argument. Neither my premise, nor Devlin’s, was that getting blind drunk is the same as gay marriage. He may have chosen any example of private behaviour. Maybe if we swap getting blind drunk with drug taking you’ll understand it better. Devlin’s question was rhetorical. Look up what that means. His point was, that private behaviour can get to the stage where it impacts on the public good and so it becomes of public concern.

So being gay is like being a drug addict? Maybe if instead of insulting people you explained how being gay “impacts the public good,” people would give some credit to this argument. As presented it is unpersuasive to the point of being nonsensical.

 

[John21652]

So being gay is like being a drug addict? Maybe if instead of insulting people you explained how being gay “impacts the public good,” people would give some credit to this argument. As presented it is unpersuasive to the point of being nonsensical.

Actually, being just gay is not like being a drug addict, but being an active homosexual is! Both are aberrant behaviours.

If that insults anyone, bad luck.

Now do yourself a favour and go back and read the entire argument. You might then ‘get it’.

 

[TMC]

Actually, being just gay is not like being a drug addict, but being an active homosexual is! Both are aberrant behaviours.

If that insults anyone, bad luck.

Now do yourself a favour and go back and read the entire argument. You might then ‘get it’.

There you go again with the insults. The only argument you make is that the people that disagree with you don’t understand the argument (with the thinly veiled suggestion that perhaps they are not capable of understanding it), and then you add to that by suggesting they cannot understand simple words like “rhetorical.” If you are only looking to annoy you are doing well. If you are looking to make a real point, that isn’t getting it done.

I find the argument you are advancing to be illogical and completely unpersuasive, but maybe if you actually focused on the shortcomings that have been identified in the argument you could show me the error of my ways. It’s not enough, for example, to say that you think homosexuals are like drug addicts. How are they like drug addicts? I see no parallels there at all. Even if they are, how do homosexuals harm society? Simply asserting over and over that gay people are a threat to society is meaningless and drawing meaningless and inapt analogies is not enough.

 

[StAnastasia]

What a rediculous retort.

“rediculous”? Did you complete school?

If you had read Lord Devlin’s “piece” you’d know very well he was not writing about gay people going home and getting drunk. He was giving an example of when private behavior becomes of public concern.

I did read Deviln’s piece. His claim is ridiculous (please note the spelling) that two homosexual people loving each other is equivalent as someone going home dead drunk every night. As a married heterosexual I can attest that my marriage has never been threatened by the private behavior of homosexuals; my childrens’ education has not been cheapened by the presence of loving lesbian couples who have children in my sons’ Catholic school; the Schola Cantorum with which I sing for our Latin Mass is not impeded by the fact that our choirmaster is gay. And just for the record, the gay people I know get “dead drunk” at a rate far lower that of some of my heterosexual friends, if they get drunk at all.

Most sensible people who can read and comprehend understand what he was on about. Don’t write misleading rubbish.

Get thee to an university, my good man!.

 

[StAnastasia]

His point was, that private behaviour can get to the stage where it impacts on the public good and so it becomes of public concern.

Let’s see – I read about heterosexuals fathering large numbers of children and abandoning them, heterosexuals becoming meth addicts at a tremendous rate, heterosexuals like Reagan and Gingrich and Limbaugh abandoning their families as they practice serial polygamy…

And I’m supposed to believe that permitting LGBT couples to participate in our parish life and Catholic school will somehow impact the public good? Perhaps it is twice divorced Republicans we should be concerned about as being inimical to the social good.

StAnastasia

 

[Wardog]

Your another who doesn’t get the point of Devlin’s argument. Neither my premise, nor Devlin’s, was that getting blind drunk is the same as gay marriage. He may have chosen any example of private behaviour. Maybe if we swap getting blind drunk with drug taking you’ll understand it better. Devlin’s question was rhetorical. Look up what that means. His point was, that private behaviour can get to the stage where it impacts on the public good and so it becomes of public concern.

I addressed this. Devlin’s argument is about behavior in a private house. My point is that I don’t want to live in a country where my behavior in my house is cause for government or social intervention. My private behavior in my house has no impact on the public good.

 

[John21652]

Let’s see – I read about heterosexuals fathering large numbers of children and abandoning them, heterosexuals becoming meth addicts at a tremendous rate, heterosexuals like Reagan and Gingrich and Limbaugh abandoning their families as they practice serial polygamy…

And I’m supposed to believe that permitting LGBT couples to participate in our parish life and Catholic school will somehow impact the public good? Perhaps it is twice divorced Republicans we should be concerned about as being inimical to the social good.

StAnastasia

I’m not American, so I can’t write much about the people you’ve mentioned. However, in general, I couldn’t agree with you more. Our social fabric is being torn apart. Because some bricks have been pulled out of the wall, there is no need o condone any more being pulled out, or else the wall that is our society will collapse.

 

[Rock_Happy]

I have been reading a lot about the Catholic viewpoint that defense of the family is the real issue regarding gay marriage. I’m on board with that. In any Catholic group, institution, college, parish, etc. we have the right to call it as we see it.

How do I transfer that viewpoint to others in the USA? In other words, in the U.S. there is an expectation or view which holds that as long as one doesn’t harm another, he/she is allowed the freedom to do as they like. “It’s a free country.” Why should I try to enact a law that is restrictive of ANY behavior that doesn’t cause direct, obvious harm to another?

While I don’t think homosexual behavior is morally correct, why should I try try to interfere with people who choose live that way? How does that behavior become my concern? Isn’t it the right of everyone in America to think, believe, and act as they choose as long as they don’t harm others? As a Catholic-American, do I have a duty to try to prevent legal gay-marriage?

Can anyone help me on this question?

Glennonite

It is very simple. There is resistance to change. This is a generational thing, which will pass as older people die off. Same thing happened with women’s rights and racial rights. History is merely repeating itself.

The hard part for people is that the rate of change is accelerating.

 

[John21652]

It is very simple. There is resistance to change. This is a generational thing, which will pass as older people die off. Same thing happened with women’s rights and racial rights. History is merely repeating itself.

The hard part for people is that the rate of change is accelerating.

What you are effectively pointing out is that the next generations are going to have to learn the hard way about the importance of a strong moral fabric as a requirement of a strong vibrant society. Just as the ancient Greeks and Romans learnt the hard way. Humanity seems doomed to repeat the lessons of history. Sad, really.

 

[StAnastasia]

It is very simple. There is resistance to change. This is a generational thing, which will pass as older people die off. Same thing happened with women’s rights and racial rights. History is merely repeating itself. The hard part for people is that the rate of change is accelerating.

Rock Happy, the rate of change is accelerating compared to what? I keep close tabs on my two sons and their friends. They have a very different attitude toward LGBT people than I grew up with. I grew up in a rural area in the last millennium, when gay people were invisible. They were in our churches, our schools, our scout troops, our 4-H groups, our companies, etc. They were talked about, joked about, mocked, ridiculed. And we never knew they were among us.

In contrast, my sons know numerous gay and lesbian singles and couples, through my work, through our parish and Catholic school, through my choir, through my teaching, and so forth. For their generation, someone being gay is about as threatening as someone being left-handed, or black, or Chinese. As the generation dies out that never knew LGBT people as fellow human beings, I suspect this will become a non-issue.

I am opposed to gay marriage, because I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, and grant only civil unions. Leave it up to the churches and synagogues and mosques to define marriage, and to marry or refuse to marry as they wish.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

What you are effectively pointing out is that the next generations are going to have to learn the hard way about the importance of a strong moral fabric as a requirement of a strong vibrant society. Just as the ancient Greeks and Romans learnt the hard way. Humanity seems doomed to repeat the lessons of history. Sad, really.

John, I don’t know what society you live in, but where I live our society is strong and vibrant. In our Catholic school I have been co-room parent with a lesbian mother of my son’s friend. Our school is bursting at the seams, the parish liturgies are vibrant, the Latin Mass is well-attended, and the outreach to the poor and homeless is heartfelt and substantial.

If the fabric of society is tearing because we no treat LGBT people as human beings, I can’t see any evidence of the rips. I recognize it might be different in parts of the country with high unemployment, where one might naturally point the finger at gay and lesbian couples and say “It’s them; they are the ones who are ruining the fabric of society! Let’s go get rid of them!”

StAnastasia

 

[Glennonite]

Lord Devlin’s piece is not compelling, it’s just silly. Most gay people don’t go home and get blind drunk.

I found John’s contribution reasonable and it compelled me to think and weigh it’s merits. It. Was. Compelling. As I come to understand both sides of an arguement, I find that emotionalism slows the logical analysis.

You told me that I wasn’t compelled by his contribution because it wasn’t compelling. I find your continual condecending tone to be off-putting. It slows down the arguement and clouds a rational parsing of the subject. While I want to hear both sides (yours included), I’m finding it easier to scroll past your responses. Your beratement of people’s misspellings and other quips should turn more towards charity, and patient explanation of your views. If, in the end, I am to find agreement with your view, it would be quicker to be led by kind comments rather than those of a scold. Please?

Glennonite

 

[lna419]

I view our country and rights as a “tool” given to us by God to spread his message. I think you’re using the tool the wrong way.

The rights you speak of were not given to us by God. They were given to us by man. If they were given to us by God we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The gay marriage debate would not need to happen because we would follow the rights and laws perscribed by God. The rights you speak of are the laws men put on paper. Just because man makes law doesn’t make it right.

 

[Nate13]

@Glennonite
The isn’t a discussion of opinions, its a discussion of philosophy’s. You are getting all sorts of answers because you have people with all sorts of philosophy’s. Once you figure out which philosophy you buy into, you will figure out which opinion you buy into. I recommend reading Orthodoxy by G.K Chesterton. If nothing else it will make you think.

 

[lna419]

Murder and rape exist in animals. There is hardly a behavior that cannot be found in nature, for that matter. Spiders conclude their nuptials by the bride killing and eating the groom! What animals do or don’t do is essentially irrelevant, then.

As for the intelligent and all-loving God destroying a city for some homosexuals in it, I think you need to actually read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The story has been read. maybe you did not understand my point. I said homosexuality was one of the reasons not all of the reasons.

Do not let anyone mislead you. This was not a select few of the town, and their crime against humanity was not that they were homosexual. They might not even have been homosexual, in terms of orientation. Rather, their crimes were like the “homosexuality” of men’s prisons. Not only were they violating the Middle Eastern rule of hospitality to travellers. As a town, they were gang-raping strangers:

The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, “Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.” But they replied, “No, we will pass the night in the town square.” He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined.

Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.” Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing! I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with men. Let me bring them out to you,* and you may do to them as you please. But do not do anything to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

Depending on the book your using it says: Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them. / or so that we may know them.
This speaks of homosexual acts.
Remember Abraham asked God if there were 10 righteous would you destroy the city and God said NO!
Not only did he not find 10, the men of the city wanted to “know them”*

Lot decides to give these men his daughters who he says has not known MAN
They rejected the daughters.

They replied, “Stand back! This man,” they said, “came here as a resident alien, and now he dares to give orders! We will treat you worse than them!” With that, they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. But his guests put out their hands, pulled Lot inside with them, and closed the door; they struck the men at the entrance of the house, small and great, with such a blinding light that they were utterly unable to find the doorway.

Then the guests said to Lot: “Who else belongs to you here? Sons-in-law, your sons, your daughters, all who belong to you in the city—take them away from this place! We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the LORD against those here is so great that the LORD has sent us to destroy it…" Gen. 19:1-13