Gay marriage : who cares?

[ERose]

Let me put it another way and throw this out to all the Catholics out there.

(1) Do you personally think that homosexuals should be able to marry (outside the church of course) and have those marriages recognized by the state?

(2) Do you personally think that divorcees ought to be able to remarry (outside the church) and have those marriages recognized by the state?

If you say “no” to both, at least you are consistent. If you say “no” to (1) but “yes” to (2), I think you have some explaining to do.Why is it that it is important to enforce a Catholic view of marriage upon the rest of society in the one case but not the other?

Personnally I would say no to both. But the problem with this post is that it is comparing apples and oranges. Gay marriage is an oxy moron and there cannot truly be such a thing. Remarriage is not an oxy moron. The fact of this thread is that you and K have lost the debate and you know it. So what do you do? You change the subject and compare an oxymoron with, in the Catholic belief, and illicit and invalid marriage.

 

[Abu]

Correct ERose.

The natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason.

If his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism – the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and it’s for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit.

Homosexual activity “lacks those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons. This is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” (Michael Palachuk, Why Is Homosexual Activity Morally Wrong? Referenced in The Truth About Homosexuality, Section: The Argument from Natural Law, Fr John A Harvey, Ignatius 1996, p 133-4).

Dr William Kraft asserts that the habit of masturbation carries the message that the person has not integrated his social, spiritual, emotional and physical life.” (A Psychospiritual View, 39-45). [Referenced and quoted by Fr John A Harvey O.S.F.S., *The Truth About Homosexuality, Ignatius 1996, p 162).

Fr Harvey (Op. cit. p 134-138) shows that the act of homosexual intercourse lacks the two components that make sexual intercourse natural:

1. The gastrointestinal tract is a hole running through the body – oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface and is not inside the human being, whereas vaginal intercourse is about a real physical union.
2. Since the homosexual act cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.
   Homosexual acts are ipso facto unnatural.

To equate with marriage, acts which are impossible of fulfilling the procreation and balanced formation of children is the height of insanity.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Personnally I would say no to both. But the problem with this post is that it is comparing apples and oranges. Gay marriage is an oxy moron and there cannot truly be such a thing. Remarriage is not an oxy moron. The fact of this thread is that you and K have lost the debate and you know it. So what do you do? You change the subject and compare an oxymoron with, in the Catholic belief, and illicit and invalid marriage.

Thank you. This is a short but profound post. You’ve explained it much better than I ever could!!

 

[Leela]

Personnally I would say no to both. But the problem with this post is that it is comparing apples and oranges. Gay marriage is an oxy moron and there cannot truly be such a thing. Remarriage is not an oxy moron. The fact of this thread is that you and K have lost the debate and you know it. So what do you do? You change the subject and compare an oxymoron with, in the Catholic belief, and illicit and invalid marriage.

Change the subject? This is what the subject has always been. From the OP onward, the discussion has been about why the Catholic conception of marriage needs to be imposed upon everyone else and why the Catholic Church appears inconsistent in imposing its view on homosexuality but not its view on divorce. Given that you didn’t understand that, you claim that K and I have lost a debate falls flat since you haven’t even recognized what the debate has been about.

It seems to me that from the Catholic point of view a divorcee remarrying is just as “illicit and invalid” and as much an “oxymoron” as gay marriage. How can someone who is already married get married? If the Church is really concerned about defending marriage rather than oppressing homosexuals, such remarrying divorcees ought to be made to understand that they are adulterers and fornicators living in sin. No fault divorce ought to be made illegal. Where is the Catholic political campaign against legal divorce to notch its campaign against homosexual marriage? Where is the Vatican statement that says that Catholics must oppose not only divorce in their own marriages but the right for nonCatholics to divorce? Can I take it as a matter of political expedience?

 

[Leela]

*Originally Posted by Leela
Let me put it another way and throw this out to all the Catholics out there.

(1) Do you personally think that homosexuals should be able to marry (outside the church of course) and have those marriages recognized by the state?

(2) Do you personally think that divorcees ought to be able to remarry (outside the church) and have those marriages recognized by the state?*

Personnally I would say no to both.

Then you must be concerned that the Church has not taken a stand against the legal right of nonCatholics to divorce. Why do you suppose that they oppose gay marriage but do not lead the charge against legal divorce?

 

[kenofken]

Change the subject? This is what the subject has always been. From the OP onward, the discussion has been about why the Catholic conception of marriage needs to be imposed upon everyone else and why the Catholic Church appears inconsistent in imposing its view on homosexuality but not its view on divorce. Given that you didn’t understand that, you claim that K and I have lost a debate falls flat since you haven’t even recognized what the debate has been about.

It seems to me that from the Catholic point of view a divorcee remarrying is just as “illicit and invalid” and as much an “oxymoron” as gay marriage. How can someone who is already married get married? If the Church is really concerned about defending marriage rather than oppressing homosexuals, such remarrying divorcees ought to be made to understand that they are adulterers and fornicators living in sin. No fault divorce ought to be made illegal. Where is the Catholic political campaign against legal divorce to notch its campaign against homosexual marriage? Where is the Vatican statement that says that Catholics must oppose not only divorce in their own marriages but the right for nonCatholics to divorce? Can I take it as a matter of political expedience?

I think we’ve established beyond a doubt that the people campaigning to ban gay marriage, Catholic and otherwise, are operating from a position of moral relativism on this issue. Their best argument so far is that since same sex activity is “really oogie” under natural law, that hetero adulterous cohabitation can’t really be that bad and doesn’t warrant any vigorous action to stop it from being sanctioned on a scale of millions.

If “disordered sex” really is the problem here, the Prop 8 folks have a hell of a lot more to worry about than gays. Tens of millions of hetero couples engage in all of the same “unnatural” and non-procreative acts as do gay men and women. It’s as common as sunny days in Vegas. ALL of these people are allowed to marry, even if they carry on these “lifestyles” openly and notoriously.

BDSM enthusiasts and swingers can and do get married, even those with a national public profile and reputation. People of healthy reproductive age can and do undergo permanent elective sterilization and get married. They could advertise that fact on T-shirts and demand and obtain a marriage license, and the Prop 8 folks don’t propose to raise a finger against it. Men whose sole “sexual relation” involves murdering truck stop prostitutes can get married, from prison. They would still be allowed to do so under the Prop 8 regime.

So apparently not even all “unnatural” sex acts warrant government intrusion. You can be a pervert who would make Larry Flynt or even Hannibal Lecter blush, and get a government license to do so, as long as your partner’s parts “match” under natural law. But not same sex perversion. There’s something magically, unquantifiably bad about that. Nobody can seem to define what that is with any real distinction. It’s rather like a quantum state of some sort. We’re assured that it’s not just personal bias against gays, even though it looks and moves like that, but nobody can define what it really is. We’ll just have to take whatever sophomoric natural law non-distinction-destinction at face value, I guess.

 

[davidv]

I think we’ve established beyond a doubt that the people campaigning to ban gay marriage, Catholic and otherwise, are operating from a position of moral relativism on this issue. Their best argument so far is that since same sex activity is “really oogie” under natural law, that hetero adulterous cohabitation can’t really be that bad and doesn’t warrant any vigorous action to stop it from being sanctioned on a scale of millions.

You have not established anything except SSM camp can only supply irrational responses to logical arguments.

If “disordered sex” really is the problem here, the Prop 8 folks have a hell of a lot more to worry about than gays. Tens of millions of hetero couples engage in all of the same “unnatural” and non-procreative acts as do gay men and women. It’s as common as sunny days in Vegas. ALL of these people are allowed to marry, even if they carry on these “lifestyles” openly and notoriously.

BDSM enthusiasts and swingers can and do get married, even those with a national public profile and reputation. People of healthy reproductive age can and do undergo permanent elective sterilization and get married. They could advertise that fact on T-shirts and demand and obtain a marriage license, and the Prop 8 folks don’t propose to raise a finger against it. Men whose sole “sexual relation” involves murdering truck stop prostitutes can get married, from prison. They would still be allowed to do so under the Prop 8 regime.

So apparently not even all “unnatural” sex acts warrant government intrusion. You can be a pervert who would make Larry Flynt or even Hannibal Lecter blush, and get a government license to do so, as long as your partner’s parts “match” under natural law. But not same sex perversion. There’s something magically, unquantifiably bad about that. Nobody can seem to define what that is with any real distinction. It’s rather like a quantum state of some sort. We’re assured that it’s not just personal bias against gays, even though it looks and moves like that, but nobody can define what it really is. We’ll just have to take whatever sophomoric natural law non-distinction-destinction at face value, I guess.

Spoken like a freshman.

 

[CradleCath]

*Originally Posted by Leela
Let me put it another way and throw this out to all the Catholics out there.

(1) Do you personally think that homosexuals should be able to marry (outside the church of course) and have those marriages recognized by the state?

(2) Do you personally think that divorcees ought to be able to remarry (outside the church) and have those marriages recognized by the state?*

Then you must be concerned that the Church has not taken a stand against the legal right of nonCatholics to divorce. Why do you suppose that they oppose gay marriage but do not lead the charge against legal divorce?

You asked the same question yesterday & I answered it. Please refer to post 574.

 

[CradleCath]

I know the Catholic position on divorce and homosexuality quite well. That’s not the issue here. It’s not about whether the Church “approves” divorce. Clearly is does not and never has. The issue is in how people translate belief into action, or in this case, fail to do so. If the drive to outlaw gay marriage really was rooted in a sincere concern about the sanctity of the institution and in Catholic moral law, there would be a similar move to protect the institution in civil law from abuse by adulterous re-marriage.

We fought that battle 5 centuries ago & we fought hard to follow Christ’s message on remarriage after divorce:
Scripture
Gen. 2:20-24 - we see that, from the beginning, husband and wife are joined together by God and become one body. A body cannot be dismembered and still live.

Mal. 2:16 - God says “I hate divorce.” These are strong words from our Lord. Divorce and remarriage violates the sacred marital covenant between a husband and a wife that has been ordained by God.

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus makes it clear that it is God who joins the husband and wife together, according to His will. What God joins together cannot be dissolved because God’s will is perfect and eternal.

Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18 - Jesus says that whoever divorces and remarries another commits adultery. This is an offense against the natural law.

Rom. 7:2-3 - again, Paul reiterates Jesus’ teaching that sacramental marriage followed by a divorce and remarriage is adultery. He who commits adultery destroys himself. (Prov. 6:23). Many Protestant denominations have rejected this teaching of Jesus and His Church.

What can I say…WE LOST, but not before many Catholics were martyred for this cause.

We have been fighting the civil laws that allow a “Mother” to take the life of her unborn child since 1973. For the first time in my life, I’m going to say that we are also losing that battle. I’ve been a volunteer for my state’s Right to Life Association for 30 years. I don’t do much,
just help with mail & the phone…but I’ve never been so discouraged about the outcome as I am now.

We are still fighting those who say that 2 men (2 women) can marry one another. We may also lose this battle, too…but it won’t be from lack of trying. The Church HAS to follow scripture & the Moral Law in order to remain the Church of Christ. We don’t have a choice, as we are the only people who still adher to Christ’s laws on marriage, on artificial birth control, on abortion (although we do get some help here, from Southern Baptists). Somtimes that’s all we can do…try. And here you are, condemning us because we didn’t win the battle against multiple marriages. I think the fact that several of you who are asking more of Catholics, should ask more of yourself.

I have watched this issue of sexually active gays tear apart the Anglican & Episcoplian churches. While I certainly don’t hold with all of their beliefs, it’s still very sad to see the destruction of another Church. Do you feel any guilt for this?

queerty.com/canadas-anglican-churches-can-join-anti-gay-network-so-long-as-they-leave-behind-their-church-property-20091130/

 

[LittleSoldier]

I know the Catholic position on divorce and homosexuality quite well. That’s not the issue here. It’s not about whether the Church “approves” divorce. Clearly is does not and never has. The issue is in how people translate belief into action, or in this case, fail to do so. If the drive to outlaw gay marriage really was rooted in a sincere concern about the sanctity of the institution and in Catholic moral law, there would be a similar move to protect the institution in civil law from abuse by adulterous re-marriage. There is no such movement of any substance, and there is no basis in doctrine for the huge gap in the handling of two issues which are not identical, but are substantially equivalent in terms of their moral implications. To make matters worse, divorce is not one of those fourth-tier moral laws worked up from the conjecture or debates of theologions in contemporary times. This is one of those areas where Jesus himself is on record. You would think that would make divorce, Canonically speaking, “a big deal” and at least on par with gay marriage in legislative priority.

Arguments against gay marriage from a morality standpoint don’t hold any water in the real world if you don’t at least try to uphold that morality on a consistent basis. There’s no getting around the fact that the Church, and more broadly, the Prop 8 movement, tolerates a massive abuse of marriage via adultery in civil law. The fact that they may vehemently oppose it on paper means nothing. Not opposing it actively in civil law means you tolerate it.

People here have NO good answer to this obvious and glaring inconsistency. They get mad at me and impugn my motives for bringing it up. They try to lose it in the noise and smoke of broader culture war issues. Now and again someone offers a feeble excuse for the inconsistency, usually one rooted in moral relativism. Some intimate that gays are a “real” threat to marriage while adultery and no-fault divorce on demand are not. No one’s been able to articulate any intelligent, believable basis for why that is so.

Since the divine moral law argument against gay marriage so obviously rings hollow, that only leaves more profane and unfortunate motives. Some of that is quite obviously hatred of gay people. The rest is, at best, seriously confused moral reasoning or at worst, deliberate and cynical misapplication of that moral reasoning.

There is no answer that will please you. Fortunately the Church does not answer to you. She answers to a much higher authority. You may not be able to see her fights, but she is fighting all social ills, especially abortion (for the simple reason that any kind of marriage, divorce, and adultery are meaningless to a dead child). The Church is currently fighting a proposed divorce law in Chile. Here is the link:

highbeam.com/doc/1P1-83776792.html

So you don’t like the way the Church is handling the problems that face us. Too bad for you. And you don’t understand “divine moral law.” It’s also called Universal Law and can be thought of with no religion at all. I learned about Universal Law in college when I was not a practicing Catholic. It doesn’t matter what name you give it - it is really Truth. And Truth is not changed by your ranting. Truth just is.

Are you accusing the people on this thread of hating gays? Because if you are you are so, so wrong. The Church teaches us to love everyone and that is also Jesus’ second Great Commandment (“Love your neighbor as yourself”). You speak of Jesus talking about adultery and divorce as though that somehow makes those issues more important than gay marriage. Did it ever occur to you that there might be another reason why gay marriage specifically is not spoken of by Jesus in the NT? I can come up with four possibilities right now. If you want to do something productive with your time maybe you can come up with some reasons of your own.

But whatever you do with your time, you should be treating the Church with respect, as you agreed to do when you became a member of CAF. The fact that you are showing such disrespect to my church indicates that you have little regard for rules. No wonder you are confused about marriage.

While conducting some research for this thread I was given the opportunity to peruse some rabid anti-Catholic websites. It appears that when the Church attempts to fight divorce laws or homosexual marriage she is bombarded with insults running from (paraphrasing) “If the Catholic Church doesn’t change it’s going to die like the dinosaurs; I can’t wait,” “F****ing Catholics,” “Catholicism is not a force for good in this world,” etc. It hurts to read abuse like that and all the untruths told about Catholicism. She takes the abuse and then takes abuse from people like you who question why she isn’t fighting against divorce and adultery laws. She is hated and spurned by people who do not understand her and yet she is the Bride of Christ and will reign supreme in the end. I can’t wait!

 

[LittleSoldier]

In understand the Catholic teaching on divorce and what women who are abused by their husbands are expected to do. I wish you would read my posts clearly before responding. Nowhere did I say that there ought to be a law which says that abused women can’t leave their husbands. But if Catholics are concerned about marriage and not just offended by those icky homosexuals, then it seems to me that it ought to be at least as important for a Catholic pro-marriage political agenda to outlaw divorce and forbid remarriage as it is to forbid gay marriage.

Why do you call homosexuals “icky”? They aren’t icky and you shouldn’t be saying that about children of God.

 

[John21652]

Well, I’m sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but that horse has left the barn. Within a generation or two from today, being gay will be seen as no more abnormal than being left handed. It’s just a matter of time. When my grandfather was my age, homosexuals kept in the closet or faced discrimination. When my father was my age, they were more out, but the idea of gay marriage was so ridiculous that it wasn’t even up for discussion. Today, it’s controversial. By the time someone born today is my age, they won’t even realize it was once that, it will be normal.

In catching up with what is transpiring on this thread, which has meant wading through many, many pages of opinion, it has become apparent that too many of those who would seek to have homosexual marriage “normalised” base their arguments around comparing apples with oranges. Doing so might confuse some responders for a while, but in the longer term all that can be said is that the argument for legalised homosexual marriage has become convoluted and illogical. Those who post here suppoting the normalising of homosexual marriage have displayed a total desregard for all standards of morality and decency that have been handed down through the ages, from one generation to the next. Here, I respond to Seeker’s assertion that being ‘gay’ will one day be considered as normal as being left handed. In the process, Seeker shows us clearly how the tactic of perservering with a convoluted argument might one day win them some acceptance. To a certain extent it has, because homosexuals are not hounded and persecuted as once they were. However, to suggest that one day homosexual marriage will be considered “normal” is a case of self delusion.

More and more young people today than ever before speak disparagingly of being ‘gay’. It is an insult thrown from one young man to another in jest during rambunctious behaviour. Young girls will even challenge a young man by asking “you gay or something”. I know because I hear it a lot. The attitudes that people normally espouse out loud are being repressed by all manner of anti-discrimination and anti-hate speach legislation that minorities have managed to get instituted in western societies, sometimes under tha banner of civil rights. Nevertheless, that fact will never alter the basic abhorrence towards same sex unions that most people have.

In 2009 The Seimas, Lithuania’s parliamentary body, passed the law on Tuesday, which prohibits the dissemination of public information that is recognized in general to have a negative effect on the mental health, physical, intellectual, and moral development of youth. This includes the spreading of information that “agitates for homosexual, bisexual relations, or polygamy.”

**Poland ** is considering a imilar law. The measure would also provide a strong legal barrier to homosexual “Pride” parades that promote the social acceptance, display, and celebration of aberrant sexual behaviors in civil society.

In countries such as the US and Australia, there is still a battle being waged over this “in your face” attitude and I suspect the harder the pro-gay lobby pushes it, the bigger will be the backlash. That “in your face attitude” is on display on this thread and it reeks of a total disregard for standards of basic morality which hold societies together.

In the last post here, Leela is criticised for calling homosexuals “icky”. If they don’t indulge in the abhorrent behaviour , then maybe they aren’t icky. As a man, I find homosexual behaviour as “icky” and that’s putting it mildly and politely. So, anyone who indulges in sexual behaviour that is icky, is icky. That’s the natural way of things.

Kenofken even has the gall to write I think we’ve established beyond a doubt that the people campaigning to ban gay marriage, Catholic and otherwise, are operating from a position of moral relativism on this issue. Wrong! Moral Relativism is driving the pro-gay agenda. The objective and universal moral standards of the Natural Law are what gives humankind the natural distaste for homosexual behaviour and homosexual ‘marriage’. It can be only overturned by an embrace of purely subjective morality, based on nothing but personal preferences supported by positivist laws.

 

[CradleCath]

There is no answer that will please you. Fortunately the Church does not answer to you. She answers to a much higher authority. You may not be able to see her fights, but she is fighting all social ills, especially abortion (for the simple reason that any kind of marriage, divorce, and adultery are meaningless to a dead child). The Church is currently fighting a proposed divorce law in Chile. Here is the link:

highbeam.com/doc/1P1-83776792.html

So you don’t like the way the Church is handling the problems that face us. Too bad for you. And you don’t understand “divine moral law.” It’s also called Universal Law and can be thought of with no religion at all. I learned about Universal Law in college when I was not a practicing Catholic. It doesn’t matter what name you give it - it is really Truth. And Truth is not changed by your ranting. Truth just is.

Are you accusing the people on this thread of hating gays? Because if you are you are so, so wrong. The Church teaches us to love everyone and that is also Jesus’ second Great Commandment (“Love your neighbor as yourself”). You speak of Jesus talking about adultery and divorce as though that somehow makes those issues more important than gay marriage. Did it ever occur to you that there might be another reason why gay marriage specifically is not spoken of by Jesus in the NT? I can come up with four possibilities right now. If you want to do something productive with your time maybe you can come up with some reasons of your own.

But whatever you do with your time, you should be treating the Church with respect, as you agreed to do when you became a member of CAF. The fact that you are showing such disrespect to my church indicates that you have little regard for rules. No wonder you are confused about marriage.

While conducting some research for this thread I was given the opportunity to peruse some rabid anti-Catholic websites. It appears that when the Church attempts to fight divorce laws or homosexual marriage she is bombarded with insults running from (paraphrasing) “If the Catholic Church doesn’t change it’s going to die like the dinosaurs; I can’t wait,” “F****ing Catholics,” “Catholicism is not a force for good in this world,” etc. It hurts to read abuse like that and all the untruths told about Catholicism. She takes the abuse and then takes abuse from people like you who question why she isn’t fighting against divorce and adultery laws. She is hated and spurned by people who do not understand her and yet she is the Bride of Christ and will reign supreme in the end. I can’t wait!

This deserves a repost!!!

 

[Abu]

Enslaved by the Dictatorship of Relativism (Dr Jeff Mirus)
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=703
“The most common reason people fail to seek the truth is that they do not wish to change their lives. They are clinging to choices and even habits which they at least dimly suspect a serious engagement with truth would require them to abandon. To preserve their own comfort, they instinctively try to extinguish those voices which call them to account.”

John21652, your post # 590 is a ripper. Thanks.

The insanity of conniving to construct homosexual “marriage” is further revealed:
rtforum.org/lt/lt144.html
“The state rewards and promotes those unions that are naturally beneficial to it in some direct manner. That not every such union of this type may in fact do so doesn’t change this, since we legislate for what is common, not what is exceptional and accidental.12 A couple may not know until many years later that they are infertile. Nonetheless, marriage as such tends to the end of propagating and educating those children within a stable relationship of mother and father. A homosexual union in contrast does not by its very nature tend toward this end, since such an end is strictly impossible to it.

“….the state should take an active interest in rewarding and favouring the union of marriage, because it is directly and essentially necessary for the state’s own health. In saying “should” I am implying that it has a natural obligation to do so, for the state exists primarily for the family. There is an obligation in the other direction, but the state’s duty to the family is prior. The state is essentially made up of families for the sake of the individual families. The reason for society’s concrete arrangement in the form of a state is that groups of families together can mutually benefit each other in ways that would not be possible if everyone were to go their separate way.
Note:
12 Such a marriage can of course provide a ready environment into which a child could be adopted with a loving father and mother, something a homosexual pair cannot provide. But furthermore, such a pairing of human beings is completely accidental with respect to the good of children, that is, it bears no intrinsic relation to it.

 

[kenofken]

There is no answer that will please you. Fortunately the Church does not answer to you. She answers to a much higher authority. You may not be able to see her fights, but she is fighting all social ills, especially abortion (for the simple reason that any kind of marriage, divorce, and adultery are meaningless to a dead child). The Church is currently fighting a proposed divorce law in Chile. Here is the link:

highbeam.com/doc/1P1-83776792.html

So you don’t like the way the Church is handling the problems that face us. Too bad for you. And you don’t understand “divine moral law.” It’s also called Universal Law and can be thought of with no religion at all. I learned about Universal Law in college when I was not a practicing Catholic. It doesn’t matter what name you give it - it is really Truth. And Truth is not changed by your ranting. Truth just is.

Are you accusing the people on this thread of hating gays? Because if you are you are so, so wrong. The Church teaches us to love everyone and that is also Jesus’ second Great Commandment (“Love your neighbor as yourself”). You speak of Jesus talking about adultery and divorce as though that somehow makes those issues more important than gay marriage. Did it ever occur to you that there might be another reason why gay marriage specifically is not spoken of by Jesus in the NT? I can come up with four possibilities right now. If you want to do something productive with your time maybe you can come up with some reasons of your own.

But whatever you do with your time, you should be treating the Church with respect, as you agreed to do when you became a member of CAF. The fact that you are showing such disrespect to my church indicates that you have little regard for rules. No wonder you are confused about marriage.

While conducting some research for this thread I was given the opportunity to peruse some rabid anti-Catholic websites. It appears that when the Church attempts to fight divorce laws or homosexual marriage she is bombarded with insults running from (paraphrasing) “If the Catholic Church doesn’t change it’s going to die like the dinosaurs; I can’t wait,” “F****ing Catholics,” “Catholicism is not a force for good in this world,” etc. It hurts to read abuse like that and all the untruths told about Catholicism. She takes the abuse and then takes abuse from people like you who question why she isn’t fighting against divorce and adultery laws. She is hated and spurned by people who do not understand her and yet she is the Bride of Christ and will reign supreme in the end. I can’t wait!

There is an answer that would satisfy me: all it would take is for the Prop 8 campaign and similar organized efforts to add provisions to their official platforms stating that they demand changes in civil law to ban at-will divorce and civil marriage of previously divorced people. All I’m suggesting is that you apply YOUR OWN moral teachings reasonably consistently, OR give some rational reason in Canon Law or theology why that need not be done.

Is what I’m suggesting really that ludicrous or unattainable? All you would have to do is walk the walk that your own moral law says you should. Raise and spend some funds to that end. Lobby some lawmakers. Hold a press conference. You don’t have to WIN the battle against divorce and remmarriage. All of us would agree that’s a long shot, at best. But making the effort would show that you’re not moral relativists who pick and choose provisions in theology to suit your own personal or political tastes. You guys are always busting the humps of liberal Catholics for doing that, you would think it wouldn’t take an apostate like me to show you that you have to lead by example if you’re calling people to live by the full truth of the Gospel. Nor is it evident to me why you would fight that call to walk the walk like a caged badger.

There is no answer that has “pleased” me so far because no one has made any attempt to offer a cogent answer. I’ve gotten lots of personal flak and name calling for having the temerity to hold up a mirror to YOUR church’s law revealing a disparity in it’s application. I’ve seen lots of answers to arguments I haven’t made, accusations about how the liberals and gays are ruining everything etc. Apparently the simple act of holding you up to your own standards and theology makes me “Anti-Catholic.”

Debate threads are a lot like poker games, in a sense. There comes a point where the bluffs and strategies have all played out, the stakes have been defined, and it’s time to call and lay down what you’ve really got. I think we’re well past due for that on this particular thread. My cards have been laid out on the table for all to see for about a week now. All I’m seeing from the rest of you is more bluffing, dissembling and cigar smoke, so to speak. I’m still willing to concede that you may have a hand that beats or at least matches mine. If you do, it’s high time you lay it out…

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

In catching up with what is transpiring on this thread, which has meant wading through many, many pages of opinion, it has become apparent that too many of those who would seek to have homosexual marriage “normalised” base their arguments around comparing apples with oranges. Doing so might confuse some responders for a while, but in the longer term all that can be said is that the argument for legalised homosexual marriage has become convoluted and illogical. Those who post here suppoting the normalising of homosexual marriage have displayed a total desregard for all standards of morality and decency that have been handed down through the ages, from one generation to the next. Here, I respond to Seeker’s assertion that being ‘gay’ will one day be considered as normal as being left handed. In the process, Seeker shows us clearly how the tactic of perservering with a convoluted argument might one day win them some acceptance. To a certain extent it has, because homosexuals are not hounded and persecuted as once they were. However, to suggest that one day homosexual marriage will be considered “normal” is a case of self delusion.

More and more young people today than ever before speak disparagingly of being ‘gay’. It is an insult thrown from one young man to another in jest during rambunctious behaviour. Young girls will even challenge a young man by asking “you gay or something”. I know because I hear it a lot. The attitudes that people normally espouse out loud are being repressed by all manner of anti-discrimination and anti-hate speach legislation that minorities have managed to get instituted in western societies, sometimes under tha banner of civil rights. Nevertheless, that fact will never alter the basic abhorrence towards same sex unions that most people have.

In 2009 The Seimas, Lithuania’s parliamentary body, passed the law on Tuesday, which prohibits the dissemination of public information that is recognized in general to have a negative effect on the mental health, physical, intellectual, and moral development of youth. This includes the spreading of information that “agitates for homosexual, bisexual relations, or polygamy.”

**Poland ** is considering a imilar law. The measure would also provide a strong legal barrier to homosexual “Pride” parades that promote the social acceptance, display, and celebration of aberrant sexual behaviors in civil society.

In countries such as the US and Australia, there is still a battle being waged over this “in your face” attitude and I suspect the harder the pro-gay lobby pushes it, the bigger will be the backlash. That “in your face attitude” is on display on this thread and it reeks of a total disregard for standards of basic morality which hold societies together.

In the last post here, Leela is criticised for calling homosexuals “icky”. If they don’t indulge in the abhorrent behaviour , then maybe they aren’t icky. As a man, I find homosexual behaviour as “icky” and that’s putting it mildly and politely. So, anyone who indulges in sexual behaviour that is icky, is icky. That’s the natural way of things.

Kenofken even has the gall to write I think we’ve established beyond a doubt that the people campaigning to ban gay marriage, Catholic and otherwise, are operating from a position of moral relativism on this issue. Wrong! Moral Relativism is driving the pro-gay agenda. The objective and universal moral standards of the Natural Law are what gives humankind the natural distaste for homosexual behaviour and homosexual ‘marriage’. It can be only overturned by an embrace of purely subjective morality, based on nothing but personal preferences supported by positivist laws.

Good post. Good show overall.

 

[bluelake]

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

Where does ‘hate’ come into this issue?
Why would anyone hate someone who is a homosexual. God doesn’t hate homosexuals.
God calls us all to repent of our sins. We all have plenty to confess.
Pray for me as I will pray for you.

God bless you,
bluelake

PS.
There are many sins listed to remind us of our weaknesses.
See Rom.1:28-32, 1Cor.6-913, 6;9-11 to name a few.
We are all sinners.
Let us pray about it,

bluelake

 

[mtoddm]

Friends -

There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage” and the government should not equate attempted same-sex “unions” with actual marriage.

The reason that underlies this is obvious - so obvious it is not often stated:

The male sex organ is not sexually compatible with another male sex organ.

The female sex organ is not sexually compatible with another female sex organ.

The male sex organ is specifically designed to enter the female sex organ in the marriage act, in “sexual intercourse”, which means intercourse “between the sexes” (male - female).

The female sex organ is specifically designed to receive the male sex organ in the marriage act.

Homosexual contact is not sexual intercourse; this is clear from biology.

One may invent ways to make one’s sex organ fit into other orifices, or to receive other objects, or be stimulated by other means than actual sexual intercourse, but that does not make it valid or true to the biological design.

One may find a way to have sexual contact and satisfaction with animals, or inanimate objects, or oneself, but this does not provide grounds for “marriage.”

Marriage by definition excludes all sorts of things: marriage to more than one person, marriage to one’s parent, or sibling, or grandparent, or to a child, or to one’s pet, or to a tree, or to a dead person - likewise, included in the definition of marriage is the exclusion to two people of the same sex.

It is not hate or unloving or closed-minded to point out the inherent illogical nature of trying to say that same-sex unions are the same as marriage between one man and one woman.

Why do sex organs exist?

Primarily they exist to reproduce, to bring children into the world. Secondarily, they exist to fuse a bond between a male and a female, and to create a family bond which forms the loving atmosphere for the raising of the children and also for the general betterment of the individuals.

Same-sex unions do not and cannot produce children; all children come about through heterosexual unions. A woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother.

To try to twist around these obvious facts by insisting that same-sex unions should be considered the equivalent to male/female marriage demonstrates that one is not interested in logic and reason and simply wants to push forward with one’s own agenda.

This is not Catholic teaching alone, nor is it only Christian or even religious thinking -common sense and the natural law lead to the same conclusions.

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[Seeker2010]

The reason that underlies this is obvious - so obvious it is not often stated:

Were it as obvious as you’d like to think, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Sorry.

 

[Leela]

There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage” and the government should not equate attempted same-sex “unions” with actual marriage.

The reason that underlies this is obvious - so obvious it is not often stated:

The male sex organ is not sexually compatible with another male sex organ.

The female sex organ is not sexually compatible with another female sex organ.

The male sex organ is specifically designed to enter the female sex organ in the marriage act, in “sexual intercourse”, which means intercourse “between the sexes” (male - female).

The female sex organ is specifically designed to receive the male sex organ in the marriage act.

Homosexual contact is not sexual intercourse; this is clear from biology.

One may invent ways to make one’s sex organ fit into other orifices, or to receive other objects, or be stimulated by other means than actual sexual intercourse, but that does not make it valid or true to the biological design.

I don’t think we have to be very concerned about offending biology. No one minds when we use our ingenuity to offend biology by curing diseases for example. Wether homosexual sex is biologically natural or unnatural is no more to the point than whether rape or monogamy is biologically natural or unatural.

One may find a way to have sexual contact and satisfaction with animals, or inanimate objects, or oneself, but this does not provide grounds for “marriage.”

Agreed. What is pleasurable is a different issue from what is moral.

Marriage by definition excludes all sorts of things: marriage to more than one person, marriage to one’s parent, or sibling, or grandparent, or to a child, or to one’s pet, or to a tree, or to a dead person - likewise, included in the definition of marriage is the exclusion to two people of the same sex.

Marriage is something that human beings continue to define just as we continue to define what is meant by humanity. I also don’t think we should ever define marriage in such a way as to include marriage to dead people or trees, but nature doesn’t define marriage for us. We human beings are responsible for who we are and what we make of ousselves in part through the social institutions we create such as marriage.

It is not hate or unloving or closed-minded to point out the inherent illogical nature of trying to say that same-sex unions are the same as marriage between one man and one woman.

Why do sex organs exist?

If marriage is about a particular use of sex organs, then many marriages between men and women who are sterile or just never choose to have sexual relations would be invalidated. I don’t want to say that what people need to do in their bedrooms and how often in order to be married. I don’t understand why people think that is any of their business.

Primarily they exist to reproduce, to bring children into the world. Secondarily, they exist to fuse a bond between a male and a female, and to create a family bond which forms the loving atmosphere for the raising of the children and also for the general betterment of the individuals.

Of course lots of married people people choose not to have children and even sterilize themselves. I suppose their marriages are no more valid than homosexual ones in your eyes?

Same-sex unions do not and cannot produce children; all children come about through heterosexual unions. A woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother.

True, but homosexuals can and do bear and raise children.

To try to twist around these obvious facts by insisting that same-sex unions should be considered the equivalent to male/female marriage demonstrates that one is not interested in logic and reason and simply wants to push forward with one’s own agenda.

Is there a particular law of logic that you think gay marriage violates?

This is not Catholic teaching alone, nor is it only Christian or even religious thinking -common sense and the natural law lead to the same conclusions.

Natural law is religious thinking. From my perspective, to say that something violates natural law means nothing more than that your religion forbids it. It is to project your worldview upon the state of nature and then say that nature demands that we all conform to your worldview.

I don’t see human beings as having any duty to conform to what is natural. No description of the way the world is now can tell us how the world ought to be in the future. Our duty is to transcend our past and our biological natures and to make ourselves into something better than ever were before.

Best,
Leela