Gay marriage : who cares?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nexttogodliness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s being absurdly literal. Things such as legalized abortion and homosexual unions are not direct causes of instant cultural decline but are obvious symptoms of a society heading toward a serious decline.

You simply can’t kill off 4,000 children a day and promote unions that can’t create children and maintain a society in the long run. The numbers don’t add up.

Now as for the legality of homosexual unions…they’ll happen eventually. The cat is out of the bag and I have no hope that my country will regain it’s senses in regards to such issues. But call it what you want it ain’t a marriage.
Thank you for clarifying my Roman empire allusion.

Once the legal precedent is set that gay “marriage” is considered a civil right, there will be nothing to stop others in disordered relationships from stepping forward to get a piece of the “marriage” pie. We are already well on our way, as indicated by this serious discussion of gay “marriage,” when previously it was too ridiculous to even consider discussing, and the debauchery and chaos may continue unabated toward our end.
 
Seeker

Homosexual marriage caused the fall of the Roman Empire?

Not by itself. But homosexuality and other perversions were symptomatic of the period of decline as the historian Will Durant pointed out in his book,* The Lessons of History*. In that book, first published in the early 60s, he remarked that we had not yet arrived at that stage. I think today he would admit that we already rival the sexual excesses of the Roman empire. The Romans never demanded marriage rights for homosexuals. And they weren’t even in a Christian culture.
Exactly. The posts are flying fast and furious, so I missed this earlier, sorry.
 
And, it is truly ridiculous because two men cannot ever marry, nor can two women.
Clearly, that’s just factually incorrect, as it has already happened in many places. Sorry.

It’s not universal, yet. With ‘yet’ being the key word. It will be.
 
Clearly, that’s just factually incorrect, as it has already happened in many places. Sorry.

It’s not universal, yet. With ‘yet’ being the key word. It will be.
Redefining what gays choose and calling it “marriage” doesn’t make it so. But, I have to concede that gay “marriage” will likely yet become a nationwide “right,” because the twisted society we live in sees evil as good, right as wrong, etc., and all that twisting will likely be our undoing.
 
Redefining what gays choose and calling it “marriage” doesn’t make it so.
From a legal perspective, and a legal perspective is what this thread is all about, it most certainly does. Whether you like it or not.
But, I have to concede that gay “marriage” will likely yet become a nationwide “right,” because the twisted society we live in sees evil as good, right as wrong, etc., and all that twisting will likely be our undoing.
Well, I’ll give you credit for accepting reality, but gay marriage is not evil. Killing is evil. Raping is evil. Robbing is evil. Allowing homosexuals to recognize their relationships as heterosexuals are allowed to do doesn’t qualify.

And it most certainly will not be our undoing.

Sorry.
 
Why do we care about gay marriage? We do nothing active to stop divorcees from re marrying outside the church so why would we stop homosexual from marrying outside the church.
There is no comparison.
From the natural moral law we can know that male and female are made so that procreation can occur unlike homosexuals, and as God created Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply so marriage is intrinsically between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is essentially a disorder from which, with reparative therapy, many have been able to recover.

Many contrived “rights” have been concocted as society has sunk into more and more chaos, against true human rights. Since we are all made equal (not identical; not interchangeable) in the image and likeness of God, we all have this human dignity regardless of race, sex, age, ethnic background or colour, and we all should be treated as children of God with the same human rights, without discrimination. This includes those with homosexual/lesbian orientations or inclinations. However homosexual/lesbian orientation is an objective disorder or compulsion similar to a compulsion to gambling or alcohol, and sexual orientation has no quality comparable to race, sex, ethnic background or colour.

We all possess God-given rights to discriminate against immoral, unhealthy, ugly, society-disturbing behaviour. We all possess rights to live in peace and decency, not to have to lock up our children for their protection, and rights to defend the basic elements of our civilisation.
 
as God created Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply so marriage is intrinsically between a man and a woman.
Except for a very big problem Adam and Eve never existed, at least not in the sense that your holy book teaches. For a literal interpretation of your book puts Adam and Eve’s existence to roughly 6,000 years ago, and we know, to a scientific fact, that humans have existed much longer than that.

Not to mention that even if they did exist, which they clearly did not, what kind of justice is it that we, their so called descendants, should inherit their errors.

Do we arrest the sons of murders? Do we execute the daughters of rapists?

No, we do not.

To suggest that humanity is more humane than God is, methinks, sacrilegious on it’s own.
 
[Seeker2010
For a literal interpretation of your book puts Adam and Eve’s existence to roughly 6,000 years ago, and we know, to a scientific fact, that humans have existed much longer than that.
Christ’s Church does not teach empirical science, and does not teach a time span for our first parents. She gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, and She declares how they are to be interpreted. For the senses of Scripture see Living Tradition at rtforum.org/study/lesson2.html

Through Adam and Eve we inherited our fallen nature – check up on Original Sin at Living Tradition.
[/quote]
 
Except for a very big problem Adam and Eve never existed, at least not in the sense that your holy book teaches. For a literal interpretation of your book puts Adam and Eve’s existence to roughly 6,000 years ago, and we know, to a scientific fact, that humans have existed much longer than that.
Not to mention that even if they did exist, which they clearly did not, what kind of justice is it that we, their so called descendants, should inherit their errors.
It is seldom profitable to bandy words with unbelievers or the ignorant, nature alone teaches that homosexual behaviour is not the norm and if it was “normal”. would quickly result in the decline and extinction of those practicing it, given the fact that homosexual acts do not result in the birth of offspring. In the absence of technology, homosexuals cannot reproduce and therefore would be self-limiting, no one having yet discovered the genetic flaw that homosexuals claim exists to make them what they are. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, the homosexual motivation is evil and works, not for the good of humanity, but for the satisfaction of unnatural lust. Homosexuals are the least “gay” of all people, because “gayness” is not only morally deadly, but physically deadly as well. One has only to look at the stats on “gay” mortality, morbidity, suicide rates, mental illness and drug abuse, to see that this is, overall, a sick group of people. And we want children to grow up in this milieu? Now they want marriage. Marriage is one man, one woman, by definition. A “hooking-up” of two homosexuals is not a marriage, no matter what you choose to call it. To call a tail, a leg, does not make it a leg. The old rules have not been abrogated, they are still in effect, no matter how much the libertines and the liberal scream against them. To break and ignore the rules set forth in Scripture is to call down unhappiness, conflict and ultimately death upon onesself.
 
Redefining what gays choose and calling it “marriage” doesn’t make it so. But, I have to concede that gay “marriage” will likely yet become a nationwide “right,” because the twisted society we live in sees evil as good, right as wrong, etc., and all that twisting will likely be our undoing.
If it does become a “right” it will have the same rationality, moral, legal and ethical standing as did slavery. Both are inherent wrongs made “right” by positive law introduced at the behest of squaking minorities.
 
If it does become a “right” it will have the same rationality, moral, legal and ethical standing as did slavery. Both are inherent wrongs made “right” by positive law introduced at the behest of squaking minorities.
Slavery was justified entirely in terms of natural law as a precursor to positive law. The same natural law reasoning that is now used to deny gays civil rights. At least one papal bull that I am aware of gave specific sanction to slavery in some circumstances. Of course, natural law was also cited by opponents of slavery, who ultimately won out as people got more progressive (and as changing economies argued against the distortions of slave labor).

Most Christians in this country thought emancipation and later civil rights were upsetting the God-ordained order of things, carried out by prissy liberals who didn’t understand what they were tampering with. That conviction cost one president his life.
 
I made a small error in calculation: there were no less than four instances in which popes gave specific, if conditional sanction of slavery. It was contradictory at times as they also ruled that Indians could not be enslaved, but then backed off that for political reasons. So much for “Natural Law” as an inerrant compass of moral reasoning.
 
kenofken
Slavery was justified entirely in terms of natural law as a precursor to positive law. The same natural law reasoning that is now used to deny gays civil rights.
Not by the Catholic Church, and not by the natural moral law. No wonder you could give no facts.
 
Slavery was justified entirely in terms of natural law as a precursor to positive law. The same natural law reasoning that is now used to deny gays civil rights. At least one papal bull that I am aware of gave specific sanction to slavery in some circumstances. Of course, natural law was also cited by opponents of slavery, who ultimately won out as people got more progressive (and as changing economies argued against the distortions of slave labor).

Most Christians in this country thought emancipation and later civil rights were upsetting the God-ordained order of things, carried out by prissy liberals who didn’t understand what they were tampering with. That conviction cost one president his life.
Your attempt at rewriting history makes you worse than disengenuous. Go back to Page 28 of this thread and re-read my post on how slavery was very much at odds with the Natural Law and was instituted under no law until positivist law makers of Virginia made it so. Until Virginia enacted the Virginia Act of 1622, slavery did not have any standing in Law and was carried out by vested interests under local convention in defiance of universally recognised Natural Law principles. If you say otherwise, then you are guilty of grossly misleading the readers of this forum. It has always been a basic tenent of the Natural Law that a man should have freedom over himself.

I will paste here what Lord Chief Justice Mansfield said in the defining moment of the fight against slavery, the noted Somerset case of 1772 -
The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it’s so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law.
That is what drove Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement. According to Natural Law all men are entitled to be free and enitled to be considered as equals. Now don’t confuse that fact as meaning all acts of men are to be treated as being equal according to the Natural Law. Murder is not, adultery is not and most certainly homosexual behaviour is not. Just as the legal positivists declared slavery to be ‘legal’ and ‘right’, the homosexual lobby wishes to declare that one man shoving his penis up another man’s rectum is ‘love’ and ‘legal’.
 
Your attempt at rewriting history makes you worse than disengenuous. Go back to Page 28 of this thread and re-read my post on how slavery was very much at odds with the Natural Law and was instituted under no law until positivist law makers of Virginia made it so. Until Virginia enacted the Virginia Act of 1622, slavery did not have any standing in Law and was carried out by vested interests under local convention in defiance of universally recognised Natural Law principles. If you say otherwise, then you are guilty of grossly misleading the readers of this forum. It has always been a basic tenent of the Natural Law that a man should have freedom over himself.

I will paste here what Lord Chief Justice Mansfield said in the defining moment of the fight against slavery, the noted Somerset case of 1772 -

That is what drove Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement. According to Natural Law all men are entitled to be free and enitled to be considered as equals. Now don’t confuse that fact as meaning all acts of men are to be treated as being equal according to the Natural Law. Murder is not, adultery is not and most certainly homosexual behaviour is not. Just as the legal positivists declared slavery to be ‘legal’ and ‘right’, the homosexual lobby wishes to declare that one man shoving his penis up another man’s rectum is ‘love’ and ‘legal’.
Virginia? Slavery had VERY solid standing in law way before there was a Virginia. The first papal bull sanctioning slavery that I have in mind, Dum Diversas, dates to 1452. For that matter, for the thousand plus years prior to that, Christendom did rather little to forcefully repudiate the insitution of slavery in its realms, even if they did manage to temper some of its worst abuses.
 
Virginia? Slavery had VERY solid standing in law way before there was a Virginia. The first papal bull sanctioning slavery that I have in mind, Dum Diversas, dates to 1452. For that matter, for the thousand plus years prior to that, Christendom did rather little to forcefully repudiate the insitution of slavery in its realms, even if they did manage to temper some of its worst abuses.
Oh, how pathetic. You try and have us believe a Papal Bull is Law? A Bull, back in the days you are referring to, granted a right, or privilidge and apart from those who recognised the issuer as their sovereign, had no legal authority whatsoever. That Bull had no more moral authority than any other positivist law and was obvious to all serious students of history as being a politically motivated document. The Bull you refer to gave authority to the Crusaders to capture, conquer and enslave Saracens and Pagans. It was written in the context of the clash between East and West. I do concede, however, along with many others, that the edict in the Bull which directed the Crusaders to enslave the Saracens and Pagans indefinently was against the Natural Law. That is borne out by the fact that in 1537 Pope Paul II promulgated Sublimus Dei and decreed that the enslavement of the indiginous people of the Americas and all other people was wrong. The Dum Diversas granted the right to enslave the conquered to the Kings of Spain and Portugal. However the King of Spain in 1542 introduced the New Laws, which stated that the *Good Treatment and Preservation of the Indians *was paramount. Thus, Paul II and the Spanish King restated and reinstated the Natural Law.

Only a handful of scholars actually attribute the Dum Diversas as being responsible for the African slave trade and that handful are just so obviously anti-Church. You have joined their ranks. The fact that slavery existed at any time in the history of the human race is no argument in favour of what you wish for. Slavery has only existed because of the selfish demands and expectations of vested interests who have sought legitimacy through positive law. Those selfish demands and vested interests who have hidden behind positive laws have always been smashed down by Natural Law principles. There have always been those who would subvert the Natural Law by recourse to positive law, as you and your ilk are attempting now.
However, the Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers.
 
“There existed, of course, the practice of various types of slavery before the 15th century. However, it was not until the 15th century, and with growing frequency from the 16th to the 19th centuries, that racial slavery as we know it became a major problem. It is this form of servitude that is called to mind when we think today of the institution of slavery, and is the type which was to prevail in parts of the New World for over four centuries. The very existence of these many papal teachings during this particular period of history is a strong indication that from the viewpoint of the Magisterium, there must have developed a moral problem of a different sort than any previously encountered.

“On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull Sicut Dudum. Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa.”
From J. Budziszewski, “Preface” from The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009).

Pagans recognised slavery as wrong.
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm
Roman jurists had already developed the maxim that any doubts in cases of freedom or slavery, should be resolved in favor of liberty.—William E. H. Lecky (1838-1903), The Substance of History of European Morals (from Augustus to Charlemagne), 2 vols, ed. Clement Wood (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926), I, p 295.
 
From a legal perspective, and a legal perspective is what this thread is all about, it most certainly does. …
Actually, below is the OP, so it seems to me that the thread isn’t restricted to merely discussing the legal perspective of gay “marriage.”
Why do we care about gay marriage? We do nothing active to stop divorcees from re marrying outside the church so why would we stop homosexual from marrying outside the church. Counterpoints are welcome. Just don’t spew hate about gay people. Thx
… Well, I’ll give you credit for accepting reality, but gay marriage is not evil. Killing is evil. Raping is evil. Robbing is evil. Allowing homosexuals to recognize their relationships as heterosexuals are allowed to do doesn’t qualify.

And it most certainly will not be our undoing.

Sorry.
I didn’t imply that gay “marriage” alone will be our undoing. But, I did say the twisting in our society of evil into good, right into wrong, plus all the cultural craziness and political correctness we live with every day, most certainly will be contributory. Gay “marriage” with its immoral legal reform is yet another nail in our coffin. And, for the record, having same sex attraction is not evil, but actual homosexual acts are intrinsic evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top