Gay Marriage in America

[Elizabeth502]

I’m open to discussion. I get it that you oppose gay “marriage” – so do I. But you won’t even allow them civil unions.

You don’t get this, do you? As a Catholic, you are directed to be informed about what your Church teaches. It has nothing to do with what “I” or “you” oppose or accept. If and when there is definitive Church direction about specific contemporary issues, faithful citizenship does not allow cavalier departure from Church directives, based on principles outside of what informs Catholic decision-making.

The bishops have spoken, below and elsewhere. This issue is one the 5 Non-Negotiables for faithfully practicing Catholics.

usccbpublishing.org/client/client_pdfs/5-626pdf.pdf

How do you propose to protect the rights of children of lesbian and gay couples, if not by some sort of state-recognized civil union?

Adult cohabitating couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be given special rights, because that is contrary to the entire purpose of promoting Traditional Heterosexual Marriage, which the State has an interest in supporting.

Catholic priorities began to be diluted before the Holy Roman Empire ended.

…which means we should aggressively encourage the further descent into moral decadence.

You don’t have to wait in your community. Kick out the gay and lesbian people before they begin to affect your local society; I’m sure they will find their way to communities that will accept them.

Only you are introducing the usual false dichotomy for which the Gay Lobby is infamous in this country: either everyone accepts legalizing our unions and “marriages,” or you are “unaccepting” and want to “kick us out.” I haven’t said a single thing about not accepting other human beings. You have.

I have no idea what you mean by “flattening of moral hierarchies”

Which is frightening since you claim to teach theology and say you are Catholic.

 

[StAnastasia]

Which is frightening since you claim to teach theology and say you are Catholic.

Elizabeth, this is not really getting us anywhere, so let’s agree to disagree. Please try to have a happy weekend!

 

[Eugenius]

I believe that the primary problem will be that we may be committing a crime if we want to teach our children that homosexual acts are against God’s laws. Christian organizations will be forced to accept and condone sinful practices.

Marriage already exists and it has a meaning. Those who want to change the definition don’t have a right to force others to accept their new definition.

As Christians we should not force our views on others, but we should be free to voice our opinions regarding morality.

Regarding your second point, if you look at the man-made collection of laws, benefits and rights that define civil marriage, I think the definition of civil “marriage” has unfortunately already been redefined many times according to time and place, so the charge of “redefining marriage” doesn’t really hold very well. Luckily we have more solid ground to stand on when it comes to defining holy sanctimony, but the church does not set civil law. Also, as I have pointed out before, Americans don’t seem to have a problem with people who are divorced and remarried, or stopping the church from speaking out against it.

 

[StAnastasia]

The bishops have spoken, below and elsewhere. This issue is one the 5 Non-Negotiables for faithfully practicing Catholics.

OK, so I haven’t left yet for the weekend. What are these "five non-negotiables? I haven’t heard of them. Is this a Republican voter guide or something? (I don’t belong to a party).

Adult cohabitating couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be given special rights, because that is contrary to the entire purpose of promoting Traditional Heterosexual Marriage, which the State has an interest in supporting.

I quite agree – no special rights for adult cohabitating [sic] couples.

…which means we should aggressively encourage the further descent into moral decadence.

Does that include champagne and dark chocolate?

Which is frightening since you claim to teach theology and say you are Catholic.

Elizabeth, I googled this, and the only reference to it on the Internet is to your use of it! You just made up the term “flattening of moral hierarchies,” didn’t you? I teach ethics and I have not heard the term before. What is a “moral hierarchy”? What is a flattened one of those?

Thanks,
StAnastasia

 

[Eugenius]

First, I want to address Catholicguy100’s assertion that our Country’s religious freedom isn’t in jeopardy. When schools will soon be forced to teach children that homosexual behavior is an “option”, and that our sexual preference is a matter of choice, where is your religious freedom then?

Now, I’ll address the issue of harm to society (I’m glad you asked)…

It distorts truth by taking an evil (homosexual marriage) and making it look like good; and by taking good (defense of marriage) and making it appear evil. Were we not strongly warned against this? Hmmm… now what clever entity could possibly be responsible for this distortion of truth? Let’s think…

Last, but certainly not least, it is a blatant attack on the family, which is the backbone of society. Without the backbone, we won’t be able to stand. Without the strength of the family, where does that place society?

Again, think about the purpose of marriage in our society. To create a healthy environment for the continuation of our species. Once that is distorted and bastardized, then it is an attack on the very strength of our society.

All these points also apply to divorce, but where is the outcry and rhetoric about the evil and harm that divorce creates?

 

[StAnastasia]

All these points also apply to divorce, but where is the outcry and rhetoric about the evil and harm that divorce creates?

Probably because LGBT people make good scapegoats at at time of anxiety, terrorism, unemployment, and crashing stock markets. It’s easier to pick on an historically despised minority – as causative of the fall of Western civilization – than to take on wealthy and powerful divorced heterosexuals, such as Ronald Regan, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh.

StAnastasia

 

[Eugenius]

@Glennonite I see this all too often in america. You are putting america above God. Plain and simple. Our job of evangelization means calling out to one another and keeping them strong in Christ and for those who do not know Him, sharing the Truth of His Word. To take the stance that “in america” everyone is free to do what they want and if two gay men want to live together, so what? If they want to get married and adopt kids? So what? You know it is a sin. And you are, in effect, turning your back on them. In allowing them to sin you may very well be taking a sin in on yourself by seeing someone so desperately calling out to Christ through their actions, and simply looking the other way because it’s what americans do. Freedom to do anything your sinful hearts could ever desire. This is why we should fight back on every issue raised for the spreading of the gay agenda. This country is spiraling down the toilet, not because of the countless financial and political issues, but because its society and culture has become a parasitic cancer that is infecting and slowly killing the rest of the world with its influence. There needs to be accountability for ALL of us. We can’t say, “republicans did this” or “democrats are doing that” It starts with each one of us. WE have to start doing what’s right. Then helping those around us who want to make the same appropriate changes in their own lives to grow closer with Christ. This country can still be salvaged through God’s grace, but the longer americans deny God by accepting or simply tolerating abortions and homosexuality and everything else in the way of sin, the further down the toilet america swirls until its too late and by our own hands do we find our destruction. Well I should say “your” as I’ve long since abandoned the notion of life in this country. I’m moving to Ireland and I’ll be praying for you all and rooting you on God Bless

Do I understand correctly that you are moving to Ireland because of abortion and gay marriage, or are you moving there for another reason?

 

[Eugenius]

Just to let you know, we are not trying to pass any laws. We are trying to prevent certain ideals from becoming laws. Its the homosexuals that are trying to pass their ideals as laws. The current definition of marriage in this country at least in the majority of the states is man and woman. The way God intended it to be. By the way, the muslim nations law on homosexuality is death. God commanded me to spread his word. Gods word is not debatetable.
So I guess when it comes time for people to marry animals or inanimate objects, you’ll be all for it. After all as you say, its their right.

Dont forget, according to the OT (and some Muslim countries) the penalty for adultory is death too. Yet religious conservatives elected Ronald Reagan (divorced and remarried = adultory).

 

[Eugenius]

You don’t get this, do you? As a Catholic, you are directed to be informed about what your Church teaches. It has nothing to do with what “I” or “you” oppose or accept. If and when there is definitive Church direction about specific contemporary issues, faithful citizenship does not allow cavalier departure from Church directives, based on principles outside of what informs Catholic decision-making.

The bishops have spoken, below and elsewhere. This issue is one the 5 Non-Negotiables for faithfully practicing Catholics.

usccbpublishing.org/client/client_pdfs/5-626pdf.pdf

Adult cohabitating couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be given special rights, because that is contrary to the entire purpose of promoting Traditional Heterosexual Marriage, which the State has an interest in supporting.

…which means we should aggressively encourage the further descent into moral decadence.

Only you are introducing the usual false dichotomy for which the Gay Lobby is infamous in this country: either everyone accepts legalizing our unions and “marriages,” or you are “unaccepting” and want to “kick us out.” I haven’t said a single thing about not accepting other human beings. You have.

Which is frightening since you claim to teach theology and say you are Catholic.

The term “marriage” is so generic it is practically useless for discussions of this type. There is holy sanctimony and then there are civil, man-made laws that do not transcend time or place regulating financial, medical and material issues in personal relationships. Many of these rights are obtainable by visiting an attorney and getting a will, power of attorney, etc. Apparently “the church” has no problem with that. But if these same people register their relationship with the government and get these same rights de facto, then it’s called a “special” right and all hell breaks loose. Is the church calling for all legal rights to be abolished?

Unfortunately I see nothing being done with the same resources and energy to combat the (violence, evil, stench, grossness, repulsiveness, pick your favorite word) caused by divorce. That still boggles my mind.

 

[sedonaman]

… redefining marriage will have far-reaching legal consequences. Courts are awarding parenting rights to individuals who are neither biological parents nor adoptive parents. Let us call these people “non-parents.” The courts, and now even some legislatures, are giving parental rights to non-parents. Perfectly fit parents are having their rights diminished because they once had a sexual relationship with someone. To do this, the state must establish multi-part tests for determining whether a person warrants the status of “de facto parent.” The court ends up scrutinizing the minutiae of family life to make a determination about whether a person meets the criteria for being a de facto parent.

Let us be clear: the alternative to the biological principle for determining parentage is the principle that the government decides who is a parent. Instead of simply recording parentage, the state will determine parentage, not in exceptional cases, but routinely. This is what “getting the state out of the marriage business” will eventually come to mean.

In short, redefining marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of any two persons jettisons three foundational principles: first, the principle that children are entitled to a relationship with both parents, second, the biological principle for determining parentage, and third, the principle that the state recognizes parentage, but does not assign it.

These are not insignificant changes. Please note that these concerns do not assert that anyone is unworthy of marriage, do not make anyone a “second class citizen,” and do not disparage anyone. Changing the law of marriage changes the law for everyone, and puts incentives into place that may affect the behavior of everyone. Redefining marriage is a radical social experiment.

Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. Particular people advocated the policies that led to today’s 50% divorce rate and 40% out of wedlock childbearing rate. None of these people has ever been held accountable.

“The Essential Public Purpose Of Marriage”

mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_essential_public_purpose_of_marriage/

 

[StAnastasia]

Dont forget, according to the OT (and some Muslim countries) the penalty for adultory is death too. Yet religious conservatives elected Ronald Reagan (divorced and remarried = adultory).

Eugenius, biblical precedent suggests that the female caught in adultery would be stoned, but not necessarily the male. The Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman who had been caught in adultery; no mention is made of the male. Reagan and Limbaugh and Gingrich themselves might have gotten off scot-free.

StAnastasia

 

[Glennonite]

Define “harm”.

Basically, “clear and present danger” would apply. Also, harm might be considered that which any reasonable person would be able to foresee as a direct consequence of a given action or inaction.

An assailiant pointing a gun, or waveing a knife, etc. Or if someone where to remove a sign that said, “Danger, Bridge Out” would be actions that are clearly potentially harmful to others.

While my sensibilities might see some actions as sinful, (drinking, lieing, unfaithfulness in Church duties, useing the name of God in vain, et. al.) I don’t think the government of a free society should parent its adult citizens. If I expect to be able to live my life as a Freeman, I must allow others to do the same.

Again, if I attend the theatre, I give up the freedom to free speech while others are enjoying the presentation. If I join an organization that chooses to live according to a code of ethics, (the CC, or the 4-H, or the K of C, or the BSA) I can expect and require all others within those organizations to act accordingly.

But in a nation that prides itself on freedom, I have to expect that I will encounter those who freely chose to act in ways that I do not approve. There are three ways that this can play-out:
I force them to act according to my way of living.
They force me to their way of living.
We each allow the other to live as long as none are harmed.

Glennonite

 

[Glennonite]

I can’t help it, this is just too too rabbit-hole for me.
QUOTE]
Stanastasia doesn’t make sense; she thinks quips and snippy answers are to be taken as though she is the burning bush. She wants the power of a classroom dictator rather than to be part of a dialogue with equal standing among colleagues.

Glennonite

 

[sedonaman]

Basically, “clear and present danger” would apply. Also, harm might be considered that which any reasonable person would be able to foresee as a direct consequence of a given action or inaction.
…

I think kids spend way too much time playing violent video games, so I write a computer virus and put it out on the internet. It wipes out all violent video games on millions of computer hard drives. I haven’t done “harm”; rather I’ve done good.

One of my tasks as a box boy in a supermarket was to collect shopping carts in the parking lot. I was intrigued by a noticed pressed into the child seat of the carts: “Removal of this cart from these premises is a violation of California Statute 5603.1879.G(32r)”. I never researched what California Statute 5603.1879.G(32r) said, but what I found remarkable was the extent to which the law had to go in order to convey the idea, “Thou shalt not steal.”

 

[Glennonite]

I think kids spend way too much time playing violent video games, so I write a computer virus and put it out on the internet. It wipes out all violent video games on millions of computer hard drives. I haven’t done “harm”; rather I’ve done good.

One of my tasks as a box boy in a supermarket was to collect shopping carts in the parking lot. I was intrigued by a noticed pressed into the child seat of the carts: “Removal of this cart from these premises is a violation of California Statute 5603.1879.G(32r)”. I never researched what California Statute 5603.1879.G(32r) said, but what I found remarkable was the extent to which the law had to go in order to convey the idea, “Thou shalt not steal.”

I’m not following you; help me out, please.

Glennonite

 

[sedonaman]

I’m not following you; help me out, please.

Glennonite

Harm, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It’s interesting to note that in the eyes of the law, the victims of violent crime suffer no harm, but perpetrators did who were injured or killed by their victims.

I think you will have as much trouble defining “harm” as the state of California had in defining “stealing”. And as the above article points out, it will reach grotesque proportions.

Face it. There is no bumper-sticker slogan sufficient to govern all of society.

 

[Glennonite]

Harm, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I think you will have as much trouble defining “harm” as the state of California had in defining “stealing”.

Thanks. I am comfortable with the basic, “clear and present danger” type of harm. Beyond that, it’s up to the individual or parent.

For example, I think that it’s OK to teach my nephew how to use a pocket-knife, so I do, and give him one for his birthday. My sister goes balistic. She gets the last word because he’s her responsiblility; I can still think I am right, but I can’t have any standing on this point. She must be allowed to call it as she sees it (even though I know that she’s wrong).

Glennonite

 

[Rock_Happy]

The reason we don’t do that is that marriage law serves a purpose: it provides a legal framework within which couples can exercise the duties and privileges attendant on their marriage, i.e., procreation. Heterosexual procreation in principle produces children, and the care and disposition of children is a matter of public interest. This is not true of homosexual sex acts and therefore their sex acts are not a matter of public interest.

So really the question isn’t “why shouldn’t we have gay marriage?” but “why should we?” Again, law is promulgated because it serves the common good – so a compelling public interest must be advanced in defense of the promotion of any law.

Actually, the OT proposes two views of marriage, one of having the purpose of procreation, and the other of love and support. The latter view predate the former by about 400 years. However, in the NT, the entire paradigm is turned upside down. This is understandable from the context of Judaism, where progeny were necessary for salvation. As salvation is a personal matter in the NT, then there is no longer that necessity in marriage. I would refer you to Matthew 19:12. This is really to closest thing in the Bible relevant to homosexuality as we understand it today. It is clear in accurate translations that Paul was not referring to homosexuality at all in Romans, except as it might have pertained to idolatry and the use of male prostitutes in Greece, and general debauchery… going against ones “nature” which he interpreted as ones normal actions or state by virtue of culture, education, or birth, but certainly not as “human nature” as we use the term, and not in the way that the stoics expounded on the empirical notion of “natural law.”

Secondly, your legal argument is fatuous. Individual rights always trump state rights, unless the state can show a compelling interest which would be violated. This was tested years ago in Colorado, and the courts decided that the state has no compelling interest in this matter. No attorney has been foolish enough to challenge that ruling. If there was any chance of overturning it, then it would have been challenged. There is no shortage of people interested, nor a shortage of money to do it.

 

[sedonaman]

Thanks. I am comfortable with the basic, “clear and present danger” type of harm. …

So, according to your definition, in my example of the virus, no harm was done; and perpetrators of violent crime are “harmed” when their victims fight back because the perpetrators are in “clear and present danger”. What you advocate is Nietzscheism, take the good and invert it.

---

“Laws, people must learn, particularly laws stated in sweeping terms, are dangerous things.”
Lino A. Graglia, Professor in Constitutional Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.

 

[Rock_Happy]

I think kids spend way too much time playing violent video games, so I write a computer virus and put it out on the internet. It wipes out all violent video games on millions of computer hard drives. I haven’t done “harm”; rather I’ve done good.

One of my tasks as a box boy in a supermarket was to collect shopping carts in the parking lot. I was intrigued by a noticed pressed into the child seat of the carts: “Removal of this cart from these premises is a violation of California Statute 5603.1879.G(32r)”. I never researched what California Statute 5603.1879.G(32r) said, but what I found remarkable was the extent to which the law had to go in order to convey the idea, “Thou shalt not steal.”

Errr… that latest research shows that violent games certainly don’t harm kids. On the contrary, they are probably good for them. You might want to rethink your illegal actions. You might be the only one who is harmed.