Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[Mirdath]

Ok, why?

Because, as I’ve said several times, it unduly restricts others’ freedom of action – and therefore their free will, as Catholics call it.

So why can the government deny marriage to people who want to objects?

Objects cannot consent.

Or people who want to make marriage a contract lasting only 5 years instead of a lifetime?

No problems there.

Will these things harm society? Using your logic why should the government have any marriage laws at all?

Indeed, why should they?

Current answer is ‘to keep the tax code in line, to ensure visitation/inheritance rights, and so on and so forth’. Does this particularly need to be based on marriage?

No one has freedom from religion. You run into other people’s religious beliefs every day. You have freedom of religion, you can believe whatever you want. What about the current law makes you hold any beliefs you don’t want to hold.

Sure, I run into other peoples’ beliefs – almost entirely here, for the record – but I am not beholden to them in any way. I am free from religion; I am not free from social contact.

Yeah Christianity has been used to justify lots of bad things. So has secularism. I’m sorry, I don’t mean this in a sarcastic way, but what’s the point again?

Here’s the point, as expressed earlier by you: You’re close to making a good point. I think that maybe the perceived implausibility of your example is keeping it from hitting home with me. Have you got an example from a real American law that was at one time passed? I will say in advance that sometimes the system fails - its a human system, it will fail. Slavery is an obviously example of this. But in general I believe that the more people we get voicing their full opinions the greater the chance for freedom. The more we try to limit people to purely politically correct ideas, the greater the chance of oppression.

It’s not specific to one particular belief. It’s the definition of marriage that we reached collectively. The definition has to define something, if you remove all restrictions there will be nothing left.

It was not a collective effort, unless you count ‘collective among some Christians’. Were any Muslims consulted? Any Hindus? Any atheists? Any actual women, for that matter? Think they might have had something to add, or subtract, from that civil definition?

As it stands now, this specific law represents several Christian denominations, and effectively nobody else.

I’m not trying you convince you that the law should be the one best definition of marriage that we can all come up with together. I’m just trying to convince you that I’m allowed to advocate for this without infringing others’ rights.

How is advocating an exclusive definition tailored to your own faith and beliefs not infringing upon others’ free expression?

So why do you want legal marriage at all? All it does is place limits on who can be married? Shouldn’t there be no legal marriage?

The state does have some interest in keeping records of families, for purposes of taxation, child-rearing, inheritance, and so forth. As long as that’s there, there is good reason to have a civil definition of marriage.
Tantum ergo:

Second, female suffrage is not a ‘moral issue’.

How not, pray tell? How is the elevation of half the population of a country to the status of ‘human and citizen’ not a moral issue?

 

[brianwalden]

Because, as I’ve said several times, it unduly restricts others’ freedom of action – and therefore their free will, as Catholics call it.

What freedom of action is being denied.

Objects cannot consent.

Objects don’t need to consent, they cannot be harmed.

[In reference to 5 year term marriages…] No problems there…

So what exactly is the benefit to society that the government is choosing to promote.

[Indeed, why should they?

Current answer is ‘to keep the tax code in line, to ensure visitation/inheritance rights, and so on and so forth’. Does this particularly *need

to be based on marriage?

I don’t see why those things particularly need to be based on marriage.

Here’s the point, as expressed earlier by you: You’re close to making a good point. I think that maybe the perceived implausibility of your example is keeping it from hitting home with me. Have you got an example from a real American law that was at one time passed? I will say in advance that sometimes the system fails - its a human system, it will fail. Slavery is an obviously example of this. But in general I believe that the more people we get voicing their full opinions the greater the chance for freedom. The more we try to limit people to purely politically correct ideas, the greater the chance of oppression.

So how does the slavery prove that “But in general I believe that the more people we get voicing their full opinions the greater the chance for freedom. The more we try to limit people to purely politically correct ideas, the greater the chance of oppression.” is not true?

It was not a collective effort, unless you count ‘collective among some Christians’. Were any Muslims consulted? Any Hindus? Any atheists? Any actual women, for that matter? Think they might have had something to add, or subtract, from that civil definition?

As it stands now, this specific law represents several Christian denominations, and effectively nobody else.

It sounds like your problem is with our system of democracy.

How is advocating an exclusive definition tailored to your own faith and beliefs not infringing upon others’ free expression?

Because I get to advocate what I believe to be true and you get to advocate what you get to be true and everyone else gets to do the same. That’s freedom of speech.

Maybe you think marriage is not an issue of truth. I do. I think everyone should get to express what they belive to be true and let society decide. Limiting it to PC ideas oppresses our freedom of speech and our ability to decide upon the truth.

The state does have some interest in keeping records of families, for purposes of taxation, child-rearing, inheritance, and so forth. As long as that’s there, there is good reason to have a civil definition of marriage.

I’m sorry, I don’t disagree with these reasons, but your ideas about marriage are so utilitarian. If that’s all there is to it, I wouldn’t be fighting so hard for my beliefs.

 

[Bishopite]

Mirdath:

Yes it was Dostoyevsky. His statement essentially says it all.

All, yes, if by that you mean all wrong. I do not believe in God, and I certainly do not believe ‘everything is allowable’.

Again, you are walking around in a circle with your reasoning. To say that not “everything is allowable” and yet to say that there is no God, then that only leaves mere humans with their subjective epistomological best guesses as to who has the correct moral formula. That only leads to strife and chaos and doesn’t get us to whos morality is based on objective truth.

 

[Mirdath]

What freedom of action is being denied.

The freedom of people to act on their beliefs that they should get civil recognition of their unions to members of the same sex.

Objects don’t need to consent, they cannot be harmed.

Consent is still, to my mind, the basic prerequisite to marriage. If that doesn’t satisfy you, consider that inanimate objects are not citizens or resident aliens either.

So what exactly is the benefit to society that the government is choosing to promote.

Much the same as a corporation or other entity formed between multiple people: for instance, election committees have a very limited lifespan. If a couple wishes to marry for a set period, the government can record that, tax them accordingly, know who is responsible for any children that may result, and be in a much better position to adjudicate the eventual separation, should that turn rancorous.

It’s not like heterosexual marriage is in a much better position than that right now. Why not at least make it quicker and fairer?

I don’t see why those things particularly need to be based on marriage.

They don’t! But since they are, and are not available to all couples wishing to marry, something is out of whack.

So how does the slavery prove that “But in general I believe that the more people we get voicing their full opinions the greater the chance for freedom. The more we try to limit people to purely politically correct ideas, the greater the chance of oppression.” is not true?

I wasn’t speaking of the abolishment of slavery – that does indeed validate your stance – but of its institution. The more voices that were added, the stronger it became, because the victims were not regarded as having voices. Even after emancipation, black people were counted as 3/5 of a person. As far as the establishment was concerned, they weren’t people anyway, so whatever they might have to say didn’t matter. When you’re not a person, how can you be heard?

In a similar vein, the Catholic Church couldn’t care less if homosexuals want to have civil recognition of their unions; instead, the Church fights against it with all its might, even though it has no secular authority whatsoever outside Vatican City. The Church, that monolithic, two-thousand-year-old institution, screams from the walls of Rome that homosexuality is disordered, that homosexual acts are the great sin of modern times, that love between people of the same sex is mere lust, that homosexuals, no matter how kind, loving, charitable, and even Christlike, are incapable of being family or of raising children, and that no government should in any way attempt to ‘legitimize’ homosexuality. Yet at the same time, it whispers a grudging line about how homosexuals are to be treated with dignity and charity! One is forced to ask: are we people, to the Roman Catholic Church? Are we people? Do we have a voice at all? Can we live our lives, can we be responsible for ourselves, can we be free to accept or reject the authority of the Church?

The Church’s answer seems to be ‘no’.

 

[quiet52]

I have not been able to read this long thread completely. I am hoping that someone has brought up that generally, societies throughout time have recognized that the institution of marriage has a public purpose which benefits the common good of the society. By recognizing the institution of marriage, the government recognizes that marriage serves to protect families and to replace ourselves AS a society. Marriage is the most ideal means of assuring that the society will continue to exist. It is in the best interests of the government, as a protector of the society it serves, to promote and protect the institution of marriage.

Responsible and truly loving members of society live not only for ourselves – but for perpetuating a safe, loving society. Marriage in the traditional holy sense is not merely an end to itself – it is creative in nature. Two people sexually involved in a same-gender relationship are closed unto themselves, and are not creative in the historical purpose of marriage. They cannot build the future. It would be meaningless for the government to recognize their unions as benefiting the common good. It is true that people who are engaging in sexual relationships outside of marriage may do good acts, including loving children they do not produce through their union. Spouses who cheat on each other can do the same thing. Single people can do the same thing. This does not justify changing the definition of marriage or the government’s purpose in protecting the institution of marriage.

We’re blessed that there are still some sane legislators etc. in most of our states who recognize that the government has a legitimate concern about sexual behaviors.
For example – there are solid reasons schools don’t allow promiscuous behaviors on campus, why cities don’t allow legal prostitution, why some states won’t pass “no fault divorce” laws. They recognize sexual anarchy diminishes responsible and loving families, and increases the burden on society (with reference to our penal system, tax receipts, welfare and health care burdens, and more). They recognize these behaviors are destructive to the common good.

Societies can only be perpetuated by sexual acts between men and women. Sexual unions by two people of the same gender cannot produce children. Those who would change the definition of marriage to include same-gender sexual unions consider marriage to be a “lifestyle choice” rather than an institution which exists for the larger common good (perpetuating society).

As an unmarried person, I want the same civil rights as those who promote same-gender marriage. I have drawn up legal paperwork to designate who I’d like to visit me in the hospital, or make medical decisions for me if I’m not able to, or who will receive my assets upon my death, etc. Everyone in the U.S. has these rights, whether married or not, whether in a sexual relationship or not.

Religious and ethical viewpoints aside … and believe me, I’ve exercised tons of restraint in expressing mine while writing this post … it is basic that the government must recognize the “common good” of the institution of marriage (a covenant between a man and a woman) – that by protecting and replacing ourselves through marriage, we will assure that the society will continue to exist.

I won’t even go into how the government has ignored the common good in so many ways by failing to protect families … and how so many of our citizens, through apathy and/or selfish focus on pleasure and “personal liberty,” have brought destruction to families, let alone the institution of marriage.

 

[Aramis]

Deo Volente,

Your comments got me thinking. In my wordview there’s actually two things at play here:

1. The institution of marriage. To me it is an entity in itself independent of government. We can say for the purposes of argument that the definition of marriage is decided by society.
2. The government, if it chooses, can decide that marriage is beneficial to society and promote it.

The problem is that these two issues often get muddled together and I think that’s why there’s such a heated debate. Society, as far as I know, has no clear way of defining what marriage is. So by deciding to promote marriage the government creates a defacto definition of marriage based on which type of relationship it promotes. The government’s decision to reward certain couples and not others carries so much weight that it almost steals the role of defining what marriage is away from society.

Before I spend a lot of time philosophying (is that a word?) on this idea, does anyone think I’m on the right track?

In Alaska, a “Legal Marriage” is a legal union of one man to one woman, with attendant property and child-raising rights. (Unmarried fathers have to have to sue for visitation if the mother doesn’t want him to have it. Married fathers have a right to visitation which the mother must sue to abrogate if she doesn’t want him having access to the children.)

Alaska has defined, by constitutional amendment, that two men can’t get married to each other, nor two women to each other, nor one man to two or more women, nor one woman to two or more men.

(The supreme court of Alaska, however, ordered same sex benefits be granted to unmarried gay couples.)

 

[quiet52]

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianwalden
What freedom of action is being denied.

The freedom of people to act on their beliefs that they should get civil recognition of their unions to members of the same sex.

Mirdath, is your logic that anyone wanting to act on a belief should get civil validation for it? ===

Quote:
I don’t see why those things particularly need to be based on marriage.

They don’t! But since they are, and are not available to all couples wishing to marry, something is out of whack.

What is “out of whack” is societal values.

===

In a similar vein, the Catholic Church couldn’t care less if homosexuals want to have civil recognition of their unions; instead, the Church fights against it with all its might, even though it has no secular authority whatsoever outside Vatican City. The Church, that monolithic, two-thousand-year-old institution, screams from the walls of Rome that homosexuality is disordered, that homosexual acts are the great sin of modern times, that love between people of the same sex is mere lust, that homosexuals, no matter how kind, loving, charitable, and even Christlike, are incapable of being family or of raising children, and that no government should in any way attempt to ‘legitimize’ homosexuality. Yet at the same time, it whispers a grudging line about how homosexuals are to be treated with dignity and charity! One is forced to ask: are we people, to the Roman Catholic Church? Are we people? Do we have a voice at all? Can we live our lives, can we be responsible for ourselves, can we be free to accept or reject the authority of the Church?

The Church’s answer seems to be ‘no’.

We’re called to love everyone. We’re not called to accept sinfulness. Loving someone does not mean we approve of their sins or make it any easier for them to sin. Jesus taught us that everyone, no matter how imperfect he/she is, is to be treated with dignity and charity – this is no “grudging line” as you assert.

Christians believe that exhorting someone for their sins can itself be an act of recognizing their human dignity, and be an love (charity). I’m sorry you feel so unloved, simply because most of the people in the world believe that homosexual behaviors are wrong.

I’m sorry if you believe your dignity as a human being is being attacked by those of us who believe any sexual activity outside of marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is immoral. I know many people who sin, sexually and in other ways. I’d like to think I make good efforts every day to honor the dignity of each person I encounter or work for or pray for. Not condoning sinful behaviors does not equal robbing someone of their God-given dignity.

And by the way, God allows us to sin, because he allows each of us to choose Him, or not to. Each of us, whether we are believers are not, are free to accept or reject the teachings of our Lord Jesus, who is God, and who established a Church to be a light of His love and a preserver of His teachings for the world, believers and unbelievers alike.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

[brianwalden]

The freedom of people to act on their beliefs that they should get civil recognition of their unions to members of the same sex.

People can act on their beliefs that they should get civil recognition of their unions to members of the same sex. They are acting on them by working to change laws.

Consent is still, to my mind, the basic prerequisite to marriage. If that doesn’t satisfy you, consider that inanimate objects are not citizens or resident aliens either.

I believe that one man and one woman to my mind is the basic prerequisite of marriage. Don’t people have the freedom to act on their beliefs that they should get civil recognition of their unions to objects? Why am I a tyrant for my beliefs about what marriage is and you are not. You’re just as much of a tyrant to those people as I am to you.

Much the same as a corporation or other entity formed between multiple people: for instance, election committees have a very limited lifespan. If a couple wishes to marry for a set period, the government can record that, tax them accordingly, know who is responsible for any children that may result, and be in a much better position to adjudicate the eventual separation, should that turn rancorous.

Why should the government give benefits for such living situations? Why do these things need to be associated with some seemingly made up concept of marriage?

It’s not like heterosexual marriage is in a much better position than that right now. Why not at least make it quicker and fairer?

Because I belive that marriage is something. If the government wants to promote marriage that’s fine, but if it wants to redefine marriage to some all-inclusive definition I’m not fine with that. Do you see the difference. I’m ok with the people deciding that marriage is between any two (or even more) people. I’m not ok with the government calling marriage things which the people don’t believe to be marriage in order to make everyone happy. If the government can’t promote marriage without violating its own political correctness, maybe its better of not promoting marriage.

They don’t! But since they are, and are not available to all couples wishing to marry, something is out of whack.

Wouldn’t the logical thing then be to change the laws regarding taxes, property records, inheritance, etc that are out of whack rather than changing marriage?

I wasn’t speaking of the abolishment of slavery – that does indeed validate your stance – but of its institution. The more voices that were added, the stronger it became, because the victims were not regarded as having voices. Even after emancipation, black people were counted as 3/5 of a person. As far as the establishment was concerned, they weren’t people anyway, so whatever they might have to say didn’t matter. When you’re not a person, how can you be heard?

Ok. But that’s not the position I’m advocating. I’ve always argued all along that everyone should have their voiced heard. In fact this example shows that when all voiced aren’t heard the system fails.

In a similar vein, the Catholic Church couldn’t care less if homosexuals want to have civil recognition of their unions; instead, the Church fights against it with all its might, even though it has no secular authority whatsoever outside Vatican City. The Church, that monolithic, two-thousand-year-old institution, screams from the walls of Rome that homosexuality is disordered, that homosexual acts are the great sin of modern times, that love between people of the same sex is mere lust, that homosexuals, no matter how kind, loving, charitable, and even Christlike, are incapable of being family or of raising children, and that no government should in any way attempt to ‘legitimize’ homosexuality. Yet at the same time, it whispers a grudging line about how homosexuals are to be treated with dignity and charity! One is forced to ask: are we people, to the Roman Catholic Church? Are we people? Do we have a voice at all? Can we live our lives, can we be responsible for ourselves, can we be free to accept or reject the authority of the Church??

The Church’s answer seems to be ‘no’.QUOTE]

Your issues against the Church are topics for another thread. And to answer your last question first: of course you’re free to accept or reject the authority of the Church - I’ve chosen to accept it, you’ve chosen to reject it, what’s the problem? This isn’t about what the Catholic Church says. This is about what Americans say. You, a non-Catholic, have the same voice in America that I, a Catholic, have. You seem to want to not allow me to have my voice because I am Catholic.

 

[brianwalden]

Here’s an experiment that I think highlights the main issue we’re all stuck on:

Say we (the commenters on this thread) are starting a new society and we’ve come to the point where we’re making laws defining marriage. Assume there’s some sort of democratic process for lawmaking, I don’t think the exact method really matters. In this new society the reason why we believe the definition of marriage should be what it is doesn’t matter. So there’s no religion or sexual morality or anything like that. We’re only concerned with what marriage is, not why marriage is.

One group of people believes marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Another group of people believes marriage is a union between any two people. Another group believes a marriage is a union between any number of people. And still another believes marriage is a union between any number of people as long as it contains at least one person of each gender.

Is it wrong for the groups on the more restrictive end of the spectrum to try to get the law to reflect their definition of marriage even though it will come at the exclusion of others? I mean, is it morally wrong, not is it prudent (I think prudence starts to take us into politics and I’m more interested in the morals).

I’m going back here, because I find it very interesting. Mirdath says that it is indeed wrong because it denies people freedom of action. I guess my question in response to that (for anyone to answer, not just Mirdath) is: Is marriage something that already exists and all the members of our hypothetical society are expressing their best guess as to what it is? Or is marriage something that doesn’t exist at all in our hypothetical society until its members define it?

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath, is your logic that anyone wanting to act on a belief should get civil validation for it?

If they are causing some good to society, then of course.

brianwalden:

Don’t people have the freedom to act on their beliefs that they should get civil recognition of their unions to objects? Why am I a tyrant for my beliefs about what marriage is and you are not. You’re just as much of a tyrant to those people as I am to you.

What interest does an inanimate object have in marriage? It is not a one-sided thing, is it?

Why should the government give benefits for such living situations? Why do these things need to be associated with some seemingly made up concept of marriage?

You tell me. Why should the government give benefits for heterosexual marriages, over half of which quickly end up in divorce?

Wouldn’t the logical thing then be to change the laws regarding taxes, property records, inheritance, etc that are out of whack rather than changing marriage?

That could certainly be done. Which is easier, though? Changing one law, or changing several – and updating the entire tax code? As Dave Barry wrote, nobody can even read the tax code without dying or going insane, much like the Necronomicon.

I would support the government dropping the term ‘marriage’ completely in favor of granting civil unions to everyone. As the situation stands now, that seems to be the quickest, least controversial fix.

Mirdath says that it is indeed wrong because it denies people freedom of action. I guess my question in response to that (for anyone to answer, not just Mirdath) is: Is marriage something that already exists and all the members of our hypothetical society are expressing their best guess as to what it is? Or is marriage something that doesn’t exist at all in our hypothetical society until its members define it?

From a purely secular standpoint, no institution of society exists until it is defined by that society. Religions sometimes say that an institution reflects a divine relationship, but that is internal – and religions are also institutions of society

 

[brianwalden]

Mirdath says that it is indeed wrong because it denies people freedom of action. I guess my question in response to that (for anyone to answer, not just Mirdath) is: Is marriage something that already exists and all the members of our hypothetical society are expressing their best guess as to what it is? Or is marriage something that doesn’t exist at all in our hypothetical society until its members define it?

From a purely secular standpoint, no institution of society exists until it is defined by that society. Religions sometimes say that an institution reflects a divine relationship, but that is internal – and religions are also institutions of society

I apologize for calling you out here, but I don’t think this what you really believe about marriage. I think there’s more going on here than just some man-made definition. Much like the civil rights movement wasn’t just a legal movement, it was a battle over the dignity of man. In the same way marriage reflects a truth about man and his inherent dignity. Out of respect for homosexuals, I’ve got to think that they don’t believe marriage is just two people living together and deserving some tax breaks for it. I would think they believe that there’s something more, something special, happening - something greater than just the sum of the two parts.

I think this is true whether a person is religious or not. All humans have beliefs which cannot be empirically defined, maybe the proper term is philosophical beliefs, but whatever they are we all have them. And I think this is why marriage is so contentious. We do believe that marriage is something more than just the legalistic government definition. We do believe that marriage is something more than we are as individuals. It’s something something greater that reaches down to the root of man’s very nature.

I know you don’t want to bring this into the discussion because it opens up a whole new can of worms. But if this just an issue of the government making up some type of relationship and giving it certain benefits - I don’t really care. That would make it more of a political issue than anything else and I don’t do much political debating.

 

[Bennie_P]

I would support the government dropping the term ‘marriage’ completely in favor of granting civil unions to everyone. As the situation stands now, that seems to be the quickest, least controversial fix.

Right here is the whole purpose behind the SS marriage push. To do away with marriage, thus to totally destroy the concept of family.

You tell me. Why should the government give benefits for heterosexual marriages, over half of which quickly end up in divorce?

To promote and protect the most basic unit of society - The Family!

The divorce rate would decline if society would put more value on the instiute of marriage instead of trying to destroy it as you propose;-"establishing a new morality without norms or principles"

In a world in which there is no respect for family, religion or purity, he said, “a culture of distortion that proposes anti-values” is being foisted on children, young people and the poor, “as if they were the new values of progress and modernity.”
“Prayer, as Jesus teaches it, is of little importance to this disturbed generation,” Archbishop Castagna said, adding that, “mankind seeks after that which satisfies his whims and not that which he truly needs,” and therefore even “the strongest of believers become angry with God when their complaints are not answered as they wish.”
“Is this progress?” the archbishop asked. While the Church speaks out about the dangers facing believers and strives to provide them guidance, “other voices seek to discredit” the bishops and impose belief systems and behavior that are “contrary to the faith and to Christian morality,” he said.
“The modern Pharisees set up booby traps for good people, creating division, inventing fallacies, undermining good will and portraying the best men and women as deceitful,” Archbishop Castagna stated.

 

[Exalt]

In a similar vein, the Catholic Church couldn’t care less if homosexuals want to have civil recognition of their unions; instead, the Church fights against it with all its might, even though it has no secular authority whatsoever outside Vatican City. The Church, that monolithic, two-thousand-year-old institution, screams from the walls of Rome that homosexuality is disordered, that homosexual acts are the great sin of modern times, that love between people of the same sex is mere lust, that homosexuals, no matter how kind, loving, charitable, and even Christlike, are incapable of being family or of raising children, and that no government should in any way attempt to ‘legitimize’ homosexuality. Yet at the same time, it whispers a grudging line about how homosexuals are to be treated with dignity and charity! One is forced to ask: are we people, to the Roman Catholic Church? Are we people? Do we have a voice at all? Can we live our lives, can we be responsible for ourselves, can we be free to accept or reject the authority of the Church?

The Church’s answer seems to be ‘no’.

Well stated.

 

[Mirdath]

I apologize for calling you out here, but I don’t think this what you really believe about marriage. I think there’s more going on here than just some man-made definition. Much like the civil rights movement wasn’t just a legal movement, it was a battle over the dignity of man. In the same way marriage reflects a truth about man and his inherent dignity. Out of respect for homosexuals, I’ve got to think that they don’t believe marriage is just two people living together and deserving some tax breaks for it. I would think they believe that there’s something more, something special, happening - something greater than just the sum of the two parts.

I think this is true whether a person is religious or not. All humans have beliefs which cannot be empirically defined, maybe the proper term is philosophical beliefs, but whatever they are we all have them. And I think this is why marriage is so contentious. We do believe that marriage is something more than just the legalistic government definition. We do believe that marriage is something more than we are as individuals. It’s something something greater that reaches down to the root of man’s very nature.

I know you don’t want to bring this into the discussion because it opens up a whole new can of worms. But if this just an issue of the government making up some type of relationship and giving it certain benefits - I don’t really care. That would make it more of a political issue than anything else and I don’t do much political debating.

Yes, there is more. But like I said earlier, and as Bennie P kindly showed us in action, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe homosexuals capable of true romantic love or of forming families. So I have not been talking about that at all, since Catholics are duty-bound to reject the ideas of ‘true love’ and ‘family’ where homosexuals are concerned. I could preach all day about love, about how I feel it and have felt it for members of both sexes, how I have seen others love people of the same sex, all just as much as heterosexual people love others of the opposite sex. It simply doesn’t matter to the Church: they believe it impossible and will not be swayed. I’d be talking to a wall.

Tax breaks and inheritance rights are only the legal end of the definition. Civil marriage is about much more than the legal definition: it’s a recognition of familial status and dignity. So far, this has been denied, and the Church is actively campaigning to keep it that way.

 

[brianwalden]

Yes, there is more. But like I said earlier, and as Bennie P kindly showed us in action, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe homosexuals capable of true romantic love or of forming families. So I have not been talking about that at all, since Catholics are duty-bound to reject the ideas of ‘true love’ and ‘family’ where homosexuals are concerned. I could preach all day about love, about how I feel it and have felt it for members of both sexes, how I have seen others love people of the same sex, all just as much as heterosexual people love others of the opposite sex. It simply doesn’t matter to the Church: they believe it impossible and will not be swayed. I’d be talking to a wall.

I’ve been thinking about love ever since a few posts back. As far as I know The Catholic Church does not teach that true love doesn’t exist where homosexuals are concerned. If it did that would mean that anyone who isn’t married does not love anyone, which it doesn’t. Furthermore, immoral sexual acts do not necessarily mean that a couple doesn’t love each other: A married couple who uses contraception, a heterosexual couple in a long-term sexual relationship, and a homosexual couple in a long-term sexual relationship all commit immoral sexual acts according to the Catholic Church. While all three relationships have disordered sexual love, that doesn’t mean that the care and concern, the selfless giving, and the sharing of intimate knowledge are not true love.

I’m not really sure where family comes into this. There’s all types of designations of families. Even within the Church, tons of Catholics are in invalid marriages which the Church doesn’t recognize, yet they’re still families as far as I know. Obviously Catholics believe that the ideal family is one built on marriage, but I would think that the term family is largely self designated. But maybe I’m wrong, I haven’t ever looked closely at the idea of family.

 

[Bennie_P]

Yes, there is more. But like I said earlier, and as Bennie P kindly showed us in action, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe homosexuals capable of true romantic love or of forming families. So I have not been talking about that at all, since Catholics are duty-bound to reject the ideas of ‘true love’ and ‘family’ where homosexuals are concerned. I could preach all day about love, about how I feel it and have felt it for members of both sexes, how I have seen others love people of the same sex, all just as much as heterosexual people love others of the opposite sex. It simply doesn’t matter to the Church: they believe it impossible and will not be swayed. I’d be talking to a wall…

I think a big problem Mirdath you may have is knowing certain things about what true love is…One thing; it is not an emotion, but a choice.

"Romantic Love is a Hoax! http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/Q&A-800.html
**Emotional Programming to ‘Fall in Love’". **

**Most of us were raised assuming **
that romantic love is a natural occurence,
**something that arises from ‘human nature’. **

**Much of our confusion about this question **
arises from imprecise definitions.
**If “romantic love” is defined very broadly, **
to include almost any kind of ‘loving’ relationships between people,
**then, of course, people have been having relationships **
**ever since there were human beings, **
for the last 7 million years or so
**—ever since our species branched off from the other large apes. **

Thus, before we can even ask about the age of romantic love,
we must define exactly what we mean by romance
**and separate romantic love from other forms of ‘love’. **

**“Love” is one of the most ambiguous and flexible words **
**in the English language. **
**It means so many different things **
that we cannot be sure what someone means
**when they use the word “love”. **

**“Romantic love” is somewhat more narrow than simply “love”, **
**but we often lack precise meanings when we use it. **

**Perhaps we can begin to clarify our concepts **
**if we think of our own relationships. **
We are easily able to imagine interpersonal relationships
that do not include romantic feelings.
Even being married and/or having sex
**does not always include the emotion of romantic love. **

and the second thing true love is based on God’s love for you and your love for God;

God is love
DEUS CARITAS EST
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI

We have come to believe in God’s love

: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.
*

I don’t know if you have every read this, but even if you have please take some time out and read it or read it again, so you may understand my postion and me more - I know this is a selfish thing I ask, but I want you to truly to understand me, even if you do not agree with me.
PAX*

 

[Mirdath]

I’ve been thinking about love ever since a few posts back. As far as I know The Catholic Church does not teach that true love doesn’t exist where homosexuals are concerned. If it did that would mean that anyone who isn’t married does not love anyone, which it doesn’t. Furthermore, immoral sexual acts do not necessarily mean that a couple doesn’t love each other: A married couple who uses contraception, a heterosexual couple in a long-term sexual relationship, and a homosexual couple in a long-term sexual relationship all commit immoral sexual acts according to the Catholic Church. While all three relationships have disordered sexual love, that doesn’t mean that the care and concern, the selfless giving, and the sharing of intimate knowledge are not true love.

Sadly, I must refer you to the Catechism; this portion is also quoted in the ‘Church teaching on same sex issues’ thread stickied in Social Justice.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

In other words, anything homosexuals feel for each other is not ‘genuine’ love but lust, according to the Church.

I’m not really sure where family comes into this. There’s all types of designations of families. Even within the Church, tons of Catholics are in invalid marriages which the Church doesn’t recognize, yet they’re still families as far as I know. Obviously Catholics believe that the ideal family is one built on marriage, but I would think that the term family is largely self designated. But maybe I’m wrong, I haven’t ever looked closely at the idea of family.

Much as the cell is the basic unit of life, the family is the basic unit of society – but just like an amoeba is different from a bacterium is different from a plant cell is different from an animal cell, so too the family structure is tailored differently to the needs of each society. It’s different for every culture, although of course basic functions such as child-rearing, caring for young and elderly members, and spousal bonding are commonly shared.

 

[brianwalden]

Sadly, I must refer you to the Catechism; this portion is also quoted in the ‘Church teaching on same sex issues’ thread stickied in Social Justice.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

In other words, anything homosexuals feel for each other is not ‘genuine’ love but lust, according to the Church.

Sexually Yes. Just as with heterosexuals who engage in immoral sexual acts are lusting. But people are more than their sexual acts. Here’s an example:

Case 1: Say I’m back in my bachelor days and I’m seeing a girl. I make her a fancy dinner at my place so that she’ll want to have sex with me. It works.

Case 2: Say I’m back in my bachelor days and I’m seeing a girl. I want to do something nice for her so I make her a fancy dinner at my place. Later on that evening we have sex.

In both cases the sex is sinful - it’s lust, not love. But in the second case, making dinner was a true act of love; I did it out of selfishness. I don’t see how it’s any different for homosexual relationships. While I can’t advise anyone to be in a homosexual relationship - it’s a huge occasion for sin - I don’t doubt that love exists between homosexual couples.

 

[goofyjim]

As I asked in another thread why did the Church drop the statement “They do not choose their condition” when they revised the Catechism. It sounds like a politically motivated decision to make it sound like we deliberately choose to be SSA. We do not. We are born with it. And before anyone says anything, it is not an illness.

 

[emily47017]

While all three relationships have disordered sexual love, that doesn’t mean that the care and concern, the selfless giving, and the sharing of intimate knowledge are not true love.

i think you’re right on the money.

i also agree with mirdath that the catechism’s statement seems to deny this. what does “affective complementarity” mean, anyway? mars and venus?

but ultimately people love people, all kinds of people. if the members of a couple aren’t a perfect mirror image of one another, that doesn’t mean it isn’t love.