Gay marriage, sexual morality and the media

[edwest2]

I recently had a discussion with a friend who was raised Catholic just as I was. He asked me why gay people should not be allowed to marry. He called it persecution. He mentioned black ministers were against it, and he even mentioned the Pope as if the Pope is going to change Church teaching.

My fellow Catholics and men of good will, this is called conditioning. This is not about rational thinking, it is about the media telling everyone that gay couples who marry will be happy and be given certain rights and privileges. What the media will not give you, in most cases, is the other side of the story. And when they do, especially regarding the Catholic Church, it is always followed by the negative. The Church’s thoughts/teachings are outdated and just plain wrong.

The wrong use of human sexuality represents the bulk of the moral problems we face today. Pleasure is preferred over self-control. Yes, there are addicts out there and we should do our best, with God’s help, to overcome. Being Catholic and doing it well is similar to almost any other skill. It is learned, there are rules, except, in this case, we will be held accountable for our actions.

My friend also added the common, “What’s the big deal?” part to his argument. And I’m sure we’'ll be discussing this again because his emotions and the media are clouding his thinking.

Do not let your thinking be clouded. Find out what the Church teaches and why. Don’t let the media be your guide regarding gay marriage and sexual morality in general.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tzimisce]

There is no “right” to gay marriage.

Marriage according to our government, is a legal contract between two people. In the United States citizens can decide what kind of contracts are valid and which are not.

All across the nation Gay Marriage was put up to a vote. And it lost almost everywhere.

The Gay Marriage proponents then went to the courts who were sympathetic.

The irony is twofold: there is no right to gay marriage, but there is a right for citizens to decide what kind of government they want.

Using the court’s logic polygamists have a point. Pedophiles have a point. Someone who wants to marry their dog has a point. It’s all the same from the secular point of view.

It’s going to be interesting to watch how our courts attempt to rationalize their way out of the sick, gross things that are coming.

 

[RedFox0456]

Interesting point about how it was in fact not the majority vote in most places, but rather the courts that overturned the will of the people. We cannot forget, of course, that the will of the majority does not decide the truth of things. Being Catholic, of course, my views follow the Church.

There is a sentimentalizing of the issue which can really cloud the morality. Often, people overlook the fact that because a person is good doesn’t mean every aspect about him is perfect. Even some of the saints have done or said things we disagree with.

I myself have had to struggle with the emotional aspects of this issue many times. My uncle has had a union with a good man. Several of my friends have ssa and are overall great people. And yet, pressed on the issue, I cannot tell them I believe what they engage in is morally healthy. To address the issue anymore is very difficult, because we live in a world where criticism, even healthy criticism, is almost considered abhorrent. I’ve been able to work through this with most of my friends but I can tell others still have a strong sensitivity to the issue.

I think the bigger issue is how society really feels about God and religion. In almost all of my discussions, people assumed an ignorance on my part because of my religious beliefs. It was only after a long conversation where I could explain our beliefs and dispel the many misconceptions about the Church that any ground could be made.

The most important thing we can do is to show our love and compassion to every single person. If we preach a message of love but don’t show it, our words are empty.

 

[edwest2]

I think Bishop Fulton Sheen said it best:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html

In the 1970s and early 1980s, the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people I worked with did not behave as LGBT activists behave today. What they did on their own time did not concern me. We all got along. The large hospital where I worked began doing sexual reassignment surgery, which I became familiar with in a general way. There was no outcry when a female employee decided to become a man.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Publisher]

There is no “right” to gay marriage.

Actually marriage IS a right for US citizens according to the Supreme Court, no less than 14 times.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Though gay rights advocates said they didn’t want to change the definition of marriage, change it they did.

“We are not wanting to change the definition of marriage,” the champions of gay marriage would repeatedly point out. “We simply want to expand the pool of people eligible to get married.”

Now that the dust has settled, it has become undeniable that they did want to change the definition of marriage, with far-reaching cultural consequences.

‘Not make it different’

Faced with apologists for traditional marriage like Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, and Jennifer Roback Morse who kept maintaining that if same-sex unions became marriages it would change the definition of the word, the advocates of “marriage equality” routinely dismissed such anxieties as conservative scare-mongering without actually refuting the grounds of those concerns. When the gay rights lobby did bother to interact with these apprehensions at all, they argued that these concerns were not only needless, but also based on a confusion of categories.

Kris Perry, plaintiff in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Hollingsworth v. Perry, summarized this thinking when she declared, “We want access to something without changing it. We want to be able to have what others have. Not make it different.”

The gay rights activist group Freedom to Marry was equally clear when it announced on its website, “Allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to get married does not change the meaning of marriage.”

This was echoed by another action group, Marriage Equality USA, when it publicly declared, “We are not asking the gov’t to change marriage.”

Indeed, up through mid 2013, transatlantic advocates of same-sex marriage all gave unanimous testimony to the fact that their work had nothing to do with definition changing.

Dictionary hacking

Well, almost unanimous. Within the ranks of gay marriage champions there was one group that took a more radical—and, I would argue, more honest—approach. HACKmarriage, an anonymous group based in San Francisco, existed for the sole purpose of vandalizing dictionaries to remove the traditional conjugal definition of marriage. On its website, HACKmarriage announced that its mission is: “Hacking dictionaries to update the meaning of marriage.”

“We envision a city where every library and every bookstore has a hacked dictionary that reflects this more accurate meaning of marriage,” a representative for HACKmarriage said. “Because when our definitions change, we change. As a people, as a culture, as a society.”

To facilitate this, HACKmarriage provided stickers to place in dictionaries to cover over the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The sticker reads:

“mar•riage /’marij/ n.1 the formal union of two people by which they become partners for life.”

Two rival understandings

Though the difference between the two definitions is only a matter of a few words, it is crucial. The conjugal definition asserts that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, whereas the revisionist definition asserts that marriage is a union of two persons.

Each of these competing definitions is shorthand for an implied network of understandings that extend beyond the definition itself. (For more information about this, see my series of articles for the Colson Center on the meaning of marriage.) In the conjugal understanding—although our concept of marriage involves a degree of cultural relativity—at its core marriage is something specific, namely a sexually dimorphous union publicly recognized because of its potential fecundity. By contrast, the revisionist understanding also asserts that at its core marriage is something specific, namely a union of consenting persons (or adults) who commit to romantic partnership and domestic life. (Some revisionists like Andrew Koppelman have gone even further to say that marriage does not refer to something specific at all because it is entirely culturally relative; therefore marriage is a social construct and can mean whatever we choose for it to mean.)

…

Gay activists proudly and brazenly hacking the word “marriage” in dictionaries …Hack marriage

Simple, but effective, eh? Words have power, so control the language. Kirk and Madsen had the same marketing strategy in their objective of normalizing homosexual sex, a concept the media later embraced, now glorified in tv programs and movies. The conditioning is insidious indeed. Supreme Court justices are not immune from conditioning, I will have to say, five of them lost their logic and got their reasoning ability muddled in June last year.
,

 

[JimG]

In hacking the definition, they also hack the institution, which has always been conjugal.

 

[CarmelJerome]

I recently had a discussion with a friend who was raised Catholic just as I was. He asked me why gay people should not be allowed to marry. He called it persecution. He mentioned black ministers were against it, and he even mentioned the Pope as if the Pope is going to change Church teaching.

My fellow Catholics and men of good will, this is called conditioning. This is not about rational thinking, it is about the media telling everyone that gay couples who marry will be happy and be given certain rights and privileges. What the media will not give you, in most cases, is the other side of the story. And when they do, especially regarding the Catholic Church, it is always followed by the negative. The Church’s thoughts/teachings are outdated and just plain wrong.

The wrong use of human sexuality represents the bulk of the moral problems we face today. Pleasure is preferred over self-control. Yes, there are addicts out there and we should do our best, with God’s help, to overcome. Being Catholic and doing it well is similar to almost any other skill. It is learned, there are rules, except, in this case, we will be held accountable for our actions.

My friend also added the common, “What’s the big deal?” part to his argument. And I’m sure we’'ll be discussing this again because his emotions and the media are clouding his thinking.

Do not let your thinking be clouded. Find out what the Church teaches and why. Don’t let the media be your guide regarding gay marriage and sexual morality in general.

Peace,
Ed

Counterfeit marriage has met with success because the younger generations, age 40 and under, have grown up in a dreadfully jaded cynical age and have been deeply nihilistic. They were looking for something to be idealistic about, an issue they could become impassioned about the way that their grandparents were passionate about civil rights. The corporate press began to advance that argument, that it was no different from civil rights; despite the resistance of the African-American clergy & the members of the community who are fighting to rebuild the social structures devastated by promiscuity and divorce, it’s managed to win support, even from older people, who have been alarmed by the absence of ideals in the present world. Just as junk food is massively consumed even by people who are aware that it’s not good for you, junk sociology and junk civil rights can be promoted by artificial additives – and since sociological studies are much more abstruse and academic, the terrorizers can say “Ah hah! it’s only bigotry that’s preventing this!”

 

[estesbob]

Actually marriage IS a right for US citizens according to the Supreme Court, no less than 14 times.

But there is no “right” to change the definition of marriage to embrace any and all sexual behaviors.

 

[Kitcat1968]

But there is no “right” to change the definition of marriage to embrace any and all sexual behaviors.

You were not forced to change YOUR definition nor are you forced to embrace anything. God gave us brains to think for ourselves.

As for all the mentioning about how same-sex marriage was voted down by public votes, this is an issue that never should have been voted on in the first place. Would anyone here support a bill that would put the issue of banning Catholicism up to a vote? Of course not. Because our religion is between us and god. One being Catholic does not affect one who is an atheist, or a Baptist, or Jewish. In that same vein, the government allowing same-sex couples to enter in to a marriage “contract” does not affect those who do not wish to enter into said contract.

Now, I know I will be met with a dozen responses saying how gay marriage will lead to this and that. The majority of these arguments are simply based out of fear, or things that have nothing to do with the vast majority of gay people who enter into a civil marriage. If one wants to argue about “gay relationships” being talked about and public schools, or a florist and Baker being sued, that is a separate issue. Something should not be banned simply because a few extremists within that community go out of their way to make life harder for others.

 

[estesbob]

You were not forced to change YOUR definition nor are you forced to embrace anything. God gave us brains to think for ourselves.

.

Actually God gave us his One ,Holy, Apostolic Church to guide us so we would not , among other things, end up claiming grievous sin is “marriage”.

 

[shockerfan]

One being Catholic does not affect one who is an atheist, or a Baptist, or Jewish. In that same vein, the government allowing same-sex couples to enter in to a marriage “contract” does not affect those who do not wish to enter into said contract.

This is not true. Its not just about 2 people getting “married”. Its also about what gets taught in public schools, its about adoption, and probably some other things as well.

The state of Illinois tried to force Catholic Charities to adopt children to gay couples on a equal basis as heterosexual couples. They had to get out of the adoption business lest they violate their beliefs.

 

[edwest2]

Counterfeit marriage has met with success because the younger generations, age 40 and under, have grown up in a dreadfully jaded cynical age and have been deeply nihilistic. They were looking for something to be idealistic about, an issue they could become impassioned about the way that their grandparents were passionate about civil rights. The corporate press began to advance that argument, that it was no different from civil rights; despite the resistance of the African-American clergy & the members of the community who are fighting to rebuild the social structures devastated by promiscuity and divorce, it’s managed to win support, even from older people, who have been alarmed by the absence of ideals in the present world. Just as junk food is massively consumed even by people who are aware that it’s not good for you, junk sociology and junk civil rights can be promoted by artificial additives – and since sociological studies are much more abstruse and academic, the terrorizers can say “Ah hah! it’s only bigotry that’s preventing this!”

It took 40 years to get to this point.

amazon.com/The-Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption/dp/1581824599

The strategy appears to be “don’t blame or accuse me,” I will blame and accuse you.

All this started in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association threw away years of study and voted to have homosexuality removed as a disorder.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

A man named Kinsey issued two reports about male and female sexuality, which Hugh Hefner, among others, championed in Playboy magazine. Dr. Kinsey was not who people thought he was.

amazon.com/Kinsey-Crimes-Consequences-Queen-Scheme/dp/0966662407/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

We were lied to on more than one occasion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

But there is no “right” to change the definition of marriage to embrace any and all sexual behaviors.

There is no “the” definition of marriage. There are now, and have been in the past, many different definitions of marriage:

• Marriage (David) = 1 husband, 8 wives.
• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (Netherlands since 2001) = two adults.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008, June 2013 on) = two adults.
• Marriage (California November 2008 - June 2013) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

Civil marriage in the US recognises divorce. Catholic marriage in the US does not recognise divorce. You have at least two different definitions there, and have had them for some time.

rossum

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There is no “the” definition of marriage. There are now, and have been in the past, many different definitions of marriage:

• Marriage (David) = 1 husband, 8 wives.
• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (Netherlands since 2001) = two adults.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008, June 2013 on) = two adults.
• Marriage (California November 2008 - June 2013) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

Civil marriage in the US recognises divorce. Catholic marriage in the US does not recognise divorce. You have at least two different definitions there, and have had them for some time.

rossum

Secular (government) definitions of anything can change like the wind with a change in political ideology.

The definition of a Sacramental Marriage, by the Catholic Church, is the same as what has been accepted as a marriage since the dawn of written history. Not only is it the true definition, it is also the only logical definition.

A government can pass a law that allows two people of the same sex to call their union a marriage. Likewise, a government can pass a law that requires citizens to call an orange and apple.
That really doesn’t make an orange an apple…does it?

 

[shockerfan]

A government can pass a law that allows two people of the same sex to call their union a marriage. Likewise, a government can pass a law that requires citizens to call an orange and apple.
That really doesn’t make an orange an apple…does it?

You make a very good point, which those who support same sex unions realize. Thus, it is important to them to have their viewpoint taught in schools so that 50 years from now there will be no Zoltan Cobalts, just a bunch of people who can’t tell the difference between apples and oranges.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You make a very good point, which those who support same sex unions realize. Thus, it is important to them to have their viewpoint taught in schools so that 50 years from now there will be no Zoltan Cobalts, just a bunch of people who can’t tell the difference between apples and oranges.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

A government can pass a law that allows two people of the same sex to call their union a marriage. Likewise, a government can pass a law that requires citizens to call an orange and apple.
That really doesn’t make an orange an apple…does it?

If everyone called a certain fruit an apple then… that fruit would be an apple. That’s how language works.

Oranges are just a fruit that we call an orange. If everyone started calling it an apple then it would be an apple.

 

[shockerfan]

If everyone called a certain fruit an apple then… that fruit would be an apple. That’s how language works.

Oranges are just a fruit that we call an orange. If everyone started calling it an apple then it would be an apple.

So 1+1 = 3 if enough people say its so?

 

[delmo]

If everyone called a certain fruit an apple then… that fruit would be an apple. That’s how language works.

Oranges are just a fruit that we call an orange. If everyone started calling it an apple then it would be an apple.

That doesn’t change the orange’s identity though, just what people call it. A tomato is the ovary, with seeds, of a flowering plant. That makes it undeniably a fruit by botanical standards. People called it a vegetable for years and many still do. That didn’t magically make the tomato stop being a fruit; people were just wrong.