Gay Marriage in America

[Eugenius]

OH Please! I’m a convert and I know these. I know athiests who know that these are five non-negotiables of the Catholic Church. I know lapsed cafeteria catholics who know that these are the five non-negotiables. you must be being purposely disingenous.

There was no reason for you to respond in such an uncharitable manner. I attend mass weekly in a fairly conservative church. In the three years I have been attending this parish I have not heard the term “the five non-negotiables” once. I occassionally watch EWTN and listen to Ave Maria radio. The only time I recall hearing the term “the five non-negotiables” was during election time. I enjoy reading a wide variety of books (historical and current) on religion and the term “the five non-negotiables” has never appeared in them either. It is not inconceivable that people going about their daily lives and avoiding the media have not heard the term “the five non-negotiables.”

 

[sedonaman]

Reread post # 191.

…(1) I am opposed to the idea of “gay marriage” because it makes no sense. I am not a proponent of gay “marriage.” Got that?
…

(3) I am in favor of equal protection of LGBT couples and their children by means of civil unions. This is for the protection of the children as well as that of the partners.
…

StAnastasia

This is equivocation.

(1) is not a condemnation.

(3) is advocacy for the equivalent of SS"M" for no distinction has been made between the two.

Someone else earlier said you could split the hair. This is a perfect example.

 

[StAnastasia]

This is equivocation.
(1) is not a condemnation.
(3) is advocacy for the equivalent of SS"M" for no distinction has been made between the two.

Condemnation of others is not a hobby of mine. Have a nice day!

 

[tm30]

denounced as a heretic to a bishop in Washington last year. He was amused at the denunciation, and handled the matter with pastoral grace.

Therefore, your statement that Satan is just a theological symbol is not heresy then. Got it.

Deuteronomy 6:1-2 "These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the LORD your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. "

Might I direct you to the entire New Testament for my response?

I have taught Old Testament, but my doctorate is not in that field.

And so it was in…

My pastor and I discuss these matters often after church. But I’d better get back to work. Talk to you later.

He agrees that homosexual relationships and adoptions are morally acceptable? Does he also believe that Satan is just a myth, and satanism is just a superstition?

 

[rossum]

The teacher denied the student his right to free speech. That was my response to claims that no one’s rights will be denied because of SS"M".

And my point was that the denial of rights in Texas was not due to SSM because Texas does not have SSM.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’m challenging you to defend your reference. A small sample size is less likely to be representative. Carefully selected subjects can give you the results you want.

I provided one “carefully selected” reference. You provided one “carefully selected” reference.

We are even.

rossum

 

[sedonaman]

Condemnation of others is not a hobby of mine. Have a nice day!

More equivocation. Did I ask you to condemn a person or persons? No. SS"M" is not a person. I challenged you to back up your claim by condemning an idea :idea:. If you can’t tell the difference between a person and an idea, you have no business in a teaching capacity. Capisce?

 

[rossum]

Women wear pants- forbidden on Sinai.

Actually, given what men wore at the time of Sinai, there is a case for men wearing pants being forbidden as well. What did Charlton Heston wear in all these Biblical epics? It wasn’t pants:

http://media.dvdtown.com/images/displayimage.php?id=2917

rossum

 

[sedonaman]

And my point was that the denial of rights in Texas was not due to SSM because Texas does not have SSM.

rossum

So this stuff is going to stop once we get SS"M"? Why do I have trouble believing that?

 

[rossum]

So this stuff is going to stop once we get SS"M"? Why do I have trouble believing that?

No, I doubt if it will stop. All I am saying is that the incident in Texas was not caused by there being SSM in Texas (obviously). Please do not attribute things to me that I did not say. My point was very specific.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

Actually, given what men wore at the time of Sinai, there is a case for men wearing pants being forbidden as well. What did Charlton Heston wear in all these Biblical epics? It wasn’t pants:rossum

Abomination.

 

[sedonaman]

And my point was that the denial of rights in Texas was not due to SSM because Texas does not have SSM.

rossum

And my point is that things will be worse when we do have it. Homosexuals aren’t going to all the trouble they are for nothing since they can now form legal partnerships until the cows come home. They are in it for acceptance for openers.

Here it is in their own words:

townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2008/02/13/unmasking_the_%E2%80%9Cgay%E2%80%9D_agenda

and

townhall.com/columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda

 

[Elizabeth502]

Reread post # 191.

Post 191:

I too find it confusing, so I’ll press the “reset” button and throw out some premises:

(1) I am opposed to the idea of “gay marriage” because it makes no sense. I am not a proponent of gay “marriage.” Got that?

(3) I am in favor of equal protection of LGBT couples and their children by means of civil unions. This is for the protection of the children as well as that of the partners.

(4) In the part of the world where I live, the presence of a significant minority of lesbian or gay couples with chlldren has caused the downfall neither of the Church nor of the state. I don’t accept the argument that if we tolerate LGBT couples the sky will fall, because there is no evidence to support this.

(5) You may not like the social change that is leading to a greater acceptance of LGBT people, but (a) you are not likely to stop that change from happening, and (b) your world is not likely to fall apart as the change comes about.

Perhaps we can agree on some of the above. perhaps not. But at least we’ll know more clearly where we stand.

[all bolding mine]

(1) Is it your position that a Catholic view of morality is based on what makes sense to any particular Catholic individual? (And that was does not subjectively make sense can be ignored or opposed?)

(2) What is your understanding of the position of The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and the bishops speaking in communion with that Congregation, relative to Catholic morality?

(3) Define “equal protection for LGBT couples.” Second, the phrase itself implies an approval of their lifestyle as sexually involved couples, vs. civil protections of them as individuals covered by the Constitution of the U.S.

(4) Support for civil unions has been opposed by the leadership of our Church, as discussed in several documents I have linked on this thread. How is your apparent personal support for civil unions – in contradiction to our Church’s statements – justifiable in Catholic moral theology terms? (Conceptual argument please, within the Catholic philosophical and theological framework of moral principles, not populist rhetoric or dismissive generalities.)

(5) Define “greater acceptance for LGBT people.” Do you mean greater Catholic acceptance of sodomy and mutual masturbation? Greater Catholic acceptance of cohabitation? Greater acceptance of legal arrangements for them? Or do you mean charity, tolerance, and support for anything currently protected in the U.S. constitution, such as employment and housing and freedom to associate?

(6) Do you believe that Roman Catholicism encompasses a morality based on consensus? (Such that what “we” can agrree on would determine or modify what is defined as a legitimately Catholic position.)

 

[Eugenius]

Are all the talking points surrounding “marriage” actually defined anywhere on CAF so we know we are actually talking about the same thing? In my head there is the physical and spiritual union of a man and woman. That is “non-negotiable” and why I have such an issue with divorce. Once you have become one, that is it!

Then there are all the layers of civil law (property, inheritance, life decisions, etc.) that are also available to anyone by getting a will, power of attorney, etc. I suspect that many advocates of SSM are focused on this civil part. But where is the dividing line between having these papers one day and causing the ruin the next just because someone registered that relationship at the court house? I’ve brought this up several times but apparently people either don’t care about that part or just haven’t thought of it that way and don’t know what to say.

 

[StAnastasia]

Thanks. I think research like this is based on the full societal acceptance, if not endorsement, of homosexuality being the current cause célèbre in today’s academia. And anyone who opposes it is seen as “unenlightened”.

I wouldn’t call it a “cause célèbre in today’s academia.” As a recent article in the NCR points out, it is reflective of a wider crisis of confidence in the way in which the Catholic Church handles these matters:

"Affirmed in the recent [New York] vote is the disturbing reality that the Catholic hierarchy has lost most of its credibility with the wider culture on matters of sexuality and personal morality, just as it has lost its authority within the Catholic community on the same issues. There are reasons – and they have little to do with secularism, relativism or lingering influences of the wild 1960s – why people are no longer listening to the bishops.

"While we don’t want to minimize the seriousness of the concern of some over a societal redefinition of marriage, there are reasons we think the bishops’ hyperbolic reaction to laws such as that enacted in New York are not only wrong-headed but counterproductive.

"First, even if bishops retained the stature they once had in the wider culture, it is evident in polls and politicians’ votes that neither most of the Catholic world nor the wider culture buys the church’s teaching that homosexuals are disordered and are thus relegated to sexless lives in order to remain in the Christian community.

"A recent Quinnipiac University poll of registered New York voters found that 70 percent of voters say protestations of the law from religious leaders made no difference in their decision to support or reject it. According to Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, “On gay marriage, many of the people in the pews split with their bishops.”

"That attitude does not spring so much from a stance of defiance, as some bishops would assert, but more from the experience of gays and lesbians themselves and their parents and siblings, extended family and friends who increasingly understand gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons as far more than the sum of their sexual orientation while also understanding that sexuality is at the core of a person’s identity.

“To parents of a gay child, the idea that a group of men can claim to know the mind of God so perfectly that they can proclaim with unyielding certainty that God deems a significant portion of creation “disordered” is absurd. The label is not only demeaning but to contemporary Christians has no resonance with the heart of the Gospel.”

For the full story see ncronline.org/news/gay-marriage-bishops-and-crisis-leadership

 

[qui_est_ce]

What is a “lifestyle choice”?

Did you not claim to have a PhD and teach in Seminary?

No, I didn’t know that. Why did heterosexual parents abandon them? Perhaps because children with Down’s Syndrome didn’t fit the parents’ “lifestyle choice”?

The irony. You should preview your posts before you hit the “submit” button.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I wouldn’t call it a “cause célèbre in today’s academia.” As a recent article in the NCR points out, it is reflective of a wider crisis of confidence in the way in which the Catholic Church handles these matters:

"Affirmed in the recent [New York] vote is the disturbing reality that the Catholic hierarchy has lost most of its credibility with the wider culture on matters of sexuality and personal morality, just as it has lost its authority within the Catholic community on the same issues. There are reasons – and they have little to do with secularism, relativism or lingering influences of the wild 1960s – why people are no longer listening to the bishops.

"While we don’t want to minimize the seriousness of the concern of some over a societal redefinition of marriage, there are reasons we think the bishops’ hyperbolic reaction to laws such as that enacted in New York are not only wrong-headed but counterproductive.

"First, even if bishops retained the stature they once had in the wider culture, it is evident in polls and politicians’ votes that neither most of the Catholic world nor the wider culture buys the church’s teaching that homosexuals are disordered and are thus relegated to sexless lives in order to remain in the Christian community.

"A recent Quinnipiac University poll of registered New York voters found that 70 percent of voters say protestations of the law from religious leaders made no difference in their decision to support or reject it. According to Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, “On gay marriage, many of the people in the pews split with their bishops.”

"That attitude does not spring so much from a stance of defiance, as some bishops would assert, but more from the experience of gays and lesbians themselves and their parents and siblings, extended family and friends who increasingly understand gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons as far more than the sum of their sexual orientation while also understanding that sexuality is at the core of a person’s identity.

“To parents of a gay child, the idea that a group of men can claim to know the mind of God so perfectly that they can proclaim with unyielding certainty that God deems a significant portion of creation “disordered” is absurd. The label is not only demeaning but to contemporary Christians has no resonance with the heart of the Gospel.”

For the full story see ncronline.org/news/gay-marriage-bishops-and-crisis-leadership

What a sad commentary on contemporary mores.

 

[Eugenius]

.“To parents of a gay child, the idea that a group of men can claim to know the mind of God so perfectly that they can proclaim with unyielding certainty that God deems a significant portion of creation “disordered” is absurd. The label is not only demeaning but to contemporary Christians has no resonance with the heart of the Gospel.”

I know “disordered” is the church’s wording, but do you happen to know the word that was used to write the original document in Latin? I’m wondering if it resonates with as much emotional weight.

 

[RobbyS]

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

One of the great mysteries to me is how the public health aspects of gay sex are ignored. It is a very unhealthy life style. STDs rampant in the “community,” and even in the face of the AIDS epidemic, most remain promiscuous. The gay marriage thing is but a tactical diversion, since most gay couples have no long term commitment or even an exclusive commitment during the time they are together. This is not to say that there are no rules, but they are very unlike those of bourgeoisie society. More like that of prostitutes which, ironically remains illegal.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I wouldn’t call it a “cause célèbre in today’s academia.” As a recent article in the NCR points out, it is reflective of a wider crisis of confidence in the way in which the Catholic Church handles these matters:

"Affirmed in the recent [New York] vote is the disturbing reality that the Catholic hierarchy has lost most of its credibility with the wider culture on matters of sexuality and personal morality, just as it has lost its authority within the Catholic community on the same issues. There are reasons – and they have little to do with secularism, relativism or lingering influences of the wild 1960s – why people are no longer listening to the bishops.

"While we don’t want to minimize the seriousness of the concern of some over a societal redefinition of marriage, there are reasons we think the bishops’ hyperbolic reaction to laws such as that enacted in New York are not only wrong-headed but counterproductive.

"First, even if bishops retained the stature they once had in the wider culture, it is evident in polls and politicians’ votes that neither most of the Catholic world nor the wider culture buys the church’s teaching that homosexuals are disordered and are thus relegated to sexless lives in order to remain in the Christian community.

"A recent Quinnipiac University poll of registered New York voters found that 70 percent of voters say protestations of the law from religious leaders made no difference in their decision to support or reject it. According to Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, “On gay marriage, many of the people in the pews split with their bishops.”

"That attitude does not spring so much from a stance of defiance, as some bishops would assert, but more from the experience of gays and lesbians themselves and their parents and siblings, extended family and friends who increasingly understand gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons as far more than the sum of their sexual orientation while also understanding that sexuality is at the core of a person’s identity.

“To parents of a gay child, the idea that a group of men can claim to know the mind of God so perfectly that they can proclaim with unyielding certainty that God deems a significant portion of creation “disordered” is absurd. The label is not only demeaning but to contemporary Christians has no resonance with the heart of the Gospel.”

For the full story see ncronline.org/news/gay-marriage-bishops-and-crisis-leadership

Your response continues to equivocate on both what sedonman and I have asked you to clarify in several posts: not what “people” (above) do or do not “listen to,” but what your understanding is of the objective moral authority of Rome. Or is their moral authority merely subjective, in your view? Is morality populist? Does or does not the hierarchy of the Roman Church speak with authority, including when they describe various human behaviors as disordered, other behaviors as virtuous, etc.? Does a reduction in episcopal “stature” grant permission to the Catholic laity, including its theologians, to veto the portions of the Catechism it finds unpalatable or uncomfortable?

I’m not interested in hearing from the National Catholic Reporter about Quinnipiac polls and the like, because that’s not a personal response from you. And your response is germane to this argument because you claim to teach as a Catholic theologian.