Gay marriage licenses

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

on_the_hill

Guest
I don’t know if this belongs here or not.

A few days ago our local paper ran a story about a nearby county official who was awarding marriage licenses to gay couples. Our state does not recognize same sex marriage, so the move is legally meaningless. The article profiled a local lesbian couple who made the trip there to obtain a license. One of the women is an “interfaith non-denominational minister.” She said they always teach people to follow their hearts and to stand up for what is right.

Nice words, but in this case it ISN’T right. I think this is at the heart of moral relativism, isn’t it? The idea that we can simply make it up as we go along.

Sorry, this isn’t so much of a question as it is a statement.
 
**
on_the_hill said:
I don’t know if this belongs here or not.

A few days ago our local paper ran a story about a nearby county official who was awarding marriage licenses to gay couples. Our state does not recognize same sex marriage, so the move is legally meaningless. The article profiled a local lesbian couple who made the trip there to obtain a license. One of the women is an “interfaith non-denominational minister.” She said they always teach people to follow their hearts and to stand up for what is right.

Nice words, but in this case it ISN’T right. I think this is at the heart of moral relativism, isn’t it? The idea that we can simply make it up as we go along.

Sorry, this isn’t so much of a question as it is a statement.
Click to expand...
**

You are correct. Moral relativism has come out of the belief that there is no objective truth - only subjective. No objective truth - then it is up to me to make the determination.

When in doubt I suggest Fr. John Hardon’s website:

therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm
MORAL RELATIVISM. The theory that moral standards vary from one society to another, and from one period of history to another. Either principles are said to be social products and not universally binding or based on the objective moral order founded in human nature.
Click to expand...
TRUTH. Conformity of mind and reality. Three kinds of conformity give rise to three kinds of truth. In logical truth, the mind is conformed or in agreement with things outside the mind, either in assenting to what is or in denying what is not. Its opposite is error. In metaphysical or ontological truth, things conform with the mind. This is primary conformity, when something corresponds to the idea of its maker, and it is secondary conformity when something is intelligible and therefore true to anyone who knows it. In moral truth, what is said conforms with what is on one’s mind. This is truthfulness and its opposite is falsehood.
Click to expand...
 
on_the_hill said:
I don’t know if this belongs here or not.

A few days ago our local paper ran a story about a nearby county official who was awarding marriage licenses to gay couples. Our state does not recognize same sex marriage, so the move is legally meaningless. The article profiled a local lesbian couple who made the trip there to obtain a license. One of the women is an “interfaith non-denominational minister.” She said they always teach people to follow their hearts and to stand up for what is right.

Nice words, but in this case it ISN’T right. I think this is at the heart of moral relativism, isn’t it? The idea that we can simply make it up as we go along.

Sorry, this isn’t so much of a question as it is a statement.
Click to expand...
Your statement is right on! 👍
If it feels right to you just do it.
Lord have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Mary.
 
Those requesting “gay marriage licenses” do so under the guise of requesting “equality” however, “Equality is the formula for sameness on either side of short, horizontal, parallel lines. It is, by itself, a formula that creates the same solution regardless of the direction of the calculation across it, and has its own Value apart from the things that are being equated.Equality, however, can only be achieved. It cannot be given or granted. Something is either equal to another or it can become equal to another. Something or someone cannot make something else its equal, nor does such a declaration make it so. Equal treatment can be attempted, but it cannot be exempt from bias, for this too is a request to be made equal.” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas, R., 2012, pg. 109]

Those requesting equality with “marriage” can only achieve equality if Marriage is somehow lessened in stature to the position that the former occupies, because if they were equal, equality would not have to be asked-for. Man and Wife (male/female partnered marriages OBVIOUSLY simply do not want to be equated with the opposite). The reason is simple too. The needs of the one negate the goals of the other. Being confused with a ‘gay’ member of society, hampers a person finding a desired heterosexual SPOUSE and mate.

Further, if “gay marriage” were an enviable position, if it were worthy of emulation by those taking part in Marriage (as previously and currently defined), those taking part in Marriage would be seeking equality the other way. This is just not so, and there is no label of “bigotry” that can stick to that. If what homosexuals had (were offering Society) was somehow “better” we would be beating down their door to get it.

Homosexuals should instead, attempt, in whatever way they can, to create some immutable and lasting value worth emulation, and develop their own name for it. Anything else only forces Marriage to move-off to some other “term” where again homosexuals are not equal, or the Term becomes hyphenated to represent the same disparity [loosely paraphrased: TERMS, J.M. Thomas, R., 2012, pg. 109]
 
Least said:
Those requesting “gay marriage licenses” do so under the guise of requesting “equality” however, “Equality is the formula for sameness on either side of short, horizontal, parallel lines. It is, by itself, a formula that creates the same solution regardless of the direction of the calculation across it, and has its own Value apart from the things that are being equated.Equality, however, can only be achieved. It cannot be given or granted. Something is either equal to another or it can become equal to another. Something or someone cannot make something else its equal, nor does such a declaration make it so. Equal treatment can be attempted, but it cannot be exempt from bias, for this too is a request to be made equal.” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas, R., 2012, pg. 109]

Those requesting equality with “marriage” can only achieve equality if Marriage is somehow lessened in stature to the position that the former occupies, because if they were equal, equality would not have to be asked-for. Man and Wife (male/female partnered marriages OBVIOUSLY simply do not want to be equated with the opposite). The reason is simple too. The needs of the one negate the goals of the other. Being confused with a ‘gay’ member of society, hampers a person finding a desired heterosexual SPOUSE and mate.

Further, if “gay marriage” were an enviable position, if it were worthy of emulation by those taking part in Marriage (as previously and currently defined), those taking part in Marriage would be seeking equality the other way. This is just not so, and there is no label of “bigotry” that can stick to that. If what homosexuals had (were offering Society) we would be beating down their door to get it.

Homosexuals should instead, attempt, in whatever way they can, to create some immutable and lasting value worth emulation, and develop their own name for it. Anything else only forces Marriage to move-off to some other “term” where again homosexuals are not equal, or the Term becomes hyphenated to represent the same disparity [loosely paraphrased: TERMS, J.M. Thomas, R., 2012, pg. 109]
Click to expand...
Well said.
Mary.
 
on_the_hill said:
I don’t know if this belongs here or not.

A few days ago our local paper ran a story about a nearby county official who was awarding marriage licenses to gay couples. Our state does not recognize same sex marriage, so the move is legally meaningless. The article profiled a local lesbian couple who made the trip there to obtain a license. One of the women is an “interfaith non-denominational minister.” She said they always teach people to follow their hearts and to stand up for what is right.

Nice words, but in this case it ISN’T right. I think this is at the heart of moral relativism, isn’t it? The idea that we can simply make it up as we go along.

Sorry, this isn’t so much of a question as it is a statement.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s moral relativism at all. Many gay rights proponents have a very specific idea about what’s right and what’s wrong – they just disagree with conservative Catholics about these things. Relativism would be if they thought that everyone could have their own set of moral rules.
 
on_the_hill said:
And that’s where I think the link exists between the two.
Click to expand...
But the official is just saying that everyone could have their own legal customs, I guess, not moral rules. The official obviously thinks that gay marriage is a good thing, so they don’t have a relativistic view about gay marriage at all.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
But the official is just saying that everyone could have their own legal customs, I guess, not moral rules. The official obviously thinks that gay marriage is a good thing, so they don’t have a relativistic view about gay marriage at all.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t the official, it was one of the women applying for the license.

Anyway, my opinion is that if people are taught to follow their hearts, what standard basis does the heart start from? I’m all for following one’s heart–but there needs to be a foundation. If the lesson begins and ends with “follow your heart” people are likely to make it up as they go along.
 
Believe it or not, I consider myself “Catholic” before I am an “American” and if I were a county clerk, I simply could not issue such licenses. Unholy stuff.
 
Just a little more on this topic. Because there was another article in our paper, but this time it was on a gay marriage panel discussion. Evidently, all the attendees were in favor of gay marriage.

One of the participants, a woman who is a Presbyterian minister, remarked that gay marriage unites two people with the blessing of God. Again, this is where I find fault.

You can’t decide for God who is blessed and who isn’t. You can’t simply think, ‘God will bless this because we want him to.’ No matter how much you might want something to be, it won’t necessarily be that way. And I think this is where we Catholics differ from many of our Protestant friends.
 
I think everyone here would agree our nation and world is in pretty bad shape when it comes to all this homosexual and sexual sin in general. I cannot understand why God is waiting to destroy cities like San Francisco, and other cities where homosexual activity is rampant, he destroyed Sodom and Gommarh for this very thing, I just wonder how long it took for that city to get so bad God finally decided to destroy it?

I think if God does something along these lines against homosexuals, the mainstream would finally get the message, it is WRONG, no 2 ways about it. Im pretty sure if they see divine intervention, everyone will come to this conclusion.

God does not seem to be as direct as he was back in those days, its hard to imagine Sodom and Gommarah was any worse that some of the crazy sexual sin that is prevalent in some places today. There are some absolutely crazy, disgusting fetishes out there in todays world!!! You have to wonder what things will be like in another 20-50 yrs concerning this kind of thing, I keep saying it cant get much worse, but some idiot out there always proves me wrong and comes up with the latest fetish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top