Gay Marriage

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Please consult any dictionary and pick the definition that best fits the context in which they were used.

Alternatively: Please indentify the potential equivocal meaning that I may have been using to mislead.

I don’t know how you were using them, hence why I asked.

I’m sorry to hear that you know of what this feels like It saddens me more than my words can describe to think of the other poor souls driven into this. There is a difference taught though Joie de Vivre, we are taught there are occasions where heterosexual sex is to be praised, whereas there are no occasions where homosexual relationships are to be allowed.

Actually the Church Fathers were unanimous in that celibacy was better than sex, even sex within marriage

It is not possible or feasible to allow homosexuals to be in society but not actually “be” homosexual, rather than hiding away trying to quash their “SSA”.

I’m not at all in favor of trying to force people into the closet.

I am so terribly sorry you have suffered this Prodical_Son , but since I do not know you or what this harm entailed I couldn’t possibly make an assessment as to why you remain unharmed. Perhaps you are more stronger willed to endure the blows, perhaps you are in a more tolerant environment. There could be a whole myriad of factors.

The Church teaching isn’t the problem, the application by the theologically illiterate and those who don’t care is.

I don’t think marriage essentially does embody the life of Christ in the world, that falls down to our individual everyday actions trying to imitate his perfect example.

Celibacy is a better reflection of it than marriage.

I think Gay Marriages posses all the benefits and drawbacks of a heterosexual marriage in that…

• Two men or Two women can provide a loving home for orphans who otherwise would have no family. They are no more or less capable of providing a loving home and care than any single parent or heterosexual married couple can.

I’m not so sure that the optimal gay couple is as effective as the most optimal heterosexual couple.

• As has been observed in Denmark where State Church-Sponsored Gay marriage is fully endorsed married homosexual men (women have yet to be observed) now live longer, the suicide rate has nosedived to an all time low. How is this not a good thing? (cbsnews.com/news/married-gay-men-are-living-longer-according-to-danish-study/)

Correlation≠causation, it could just as easily have been due to a decline in bigotry.

• They provide mutual support and comfort for one another in ways that only a spouse can provide. Not always sexual, but a warmth and tender affection only seen between lovers.

That’s false, for the vast majority of human history the love of friends was placed higher than that of spouses.

-There are also the legal benefits of inheritance and medical support. I know it is said frequently on here “they can write a living will” for what they want for their partners…Well, actually no they can’t. In France for instance a blood relative has the right to challenge any will, and in most cases their claims will trump any contracts made by the deceased in life. The only thing that could prevent a homosexual from losing their home bought between them and their lover is a marrige3 certificate, for that is the only thing that trumps a blood claim.

Yes, there should be a way for them to take care of that, but that doesn’t necessarily mean marriage.

• There are also the philosophical and ethical arguments too; to be a truly universal and accepting society we have to accept as great a variety of people as possible, provided they do no harm to others. I don’t think homosexual relationships are as harmful as some of the more exotic practices of several religions we allow to operate.

I think it would be wrong to criminalize homosexual relationships, that doesn’t mean I think it is right to have gay marriage.

• There is no compelling evidence to suggest homosexual relationships are harmful to society at all. I certainly can’t see any problems between the gay couples I know, I can’t actually think of a single difference between what they get up to and a straight couple, other than the fact they’re both the same gender

I can write more if need be, but I think this works for a starting base

Marriages is not about love.

 

[NekoNecro]

For every “advance” in ethics, there is at least one regression.

I disagree, they do happen but the ratio is closer to one mistake out of ten than 1:1. Fear and timidness are the enemies of enlightenment. We have to charge bravley ahead ready to face whatever it is might result.

I am confident there are no noteworthy negatives of homosexual marriages, short of the lies (and they are that) traditional Christianity and other select religions have chosen to lump upon them.

And you have a very strange revisionist view on history, if you think that Christians were *followers *in the fight against African slavery, or if you think that Christians were a force *against *women’s liberation.

The Catholic church was traditionally an enemy of womens sufferage, since it belived a womans place was in the home (people.opposingviews.com/catholic-church-womens-suffrage-2388.html).

It should interest you that ten years after women in the US gained the Vote in 1930 Pius IX formally condemned it as an abomination and a disgrace against the dignity of women. It was that late in the game the Church finally decided to stop oppressing women. The facts are the facts.

You know from earlier on in this thread that the Catholic Church was for many centuries also an enemy of abolitionists.

There were many Christians in favour of Womens sufferage and against slavery, but (as ashamed as I am to admit it) these were Protestants, not Catholics. It was Protestant countries that first ruled against slavery, not Catholic ones.

And before Christianity came on the scene, there was no notion of a female having the ability to determine her own destiny – that was a result of the Christian notion of consecrated virginity as a real option in the Roman church, as opposed to be chewed up and spit out by the Roman attitude toward women.

I’m sorry, but this is outright untrue! Celtic women were equal to men in their societies and women have always held positions of prominence in Asia (In Persia for instance there was long history of female Satraps, Kings).

It was the Hellenistic world that was anti-woman, indeed the Catholic Church merely carried on the traditions as propagated by Rome and before that the multitude of Greek Polis.

I’m not saying this one is the Catholic Churches fault, but Patriarchy was not the norm in the ancient world prior to the Greek colonization and Rome. Even in the days of Rome we still had female Pagan Priestesses and Vestal Virgins (arguably the most influential figures in Republican Rome after the senate!)

Again, your history is off, here. I study the ancient world for a living, and the ancient world was full of consensual homosexual relationships – even the pederastic relationships were hardly barbaric, in many cases. In both Greece and Rome, it was a viable option for men to live out long-term sexual relationships with other men. Though neither Greece or Rome called these partnerships marriages.

Ok, I’m sorry mister but if this is the case you might want to do some more reading yourself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

Plutarch in one of his histories plainly describes a homosexual wedding ceremony in relation to how this group operated. Homosexual Marriage predates Holy matrimony by at very least 500 years, albeit it’s very likely more.

But won’t you admit that the harms come from *people *being cruel and insensitive? I don’t see what doctrine has to do with it.

It is doctrine that moves them. If I was to stand on my balcony today and proclaim that “Gingers are child abusers, they must be stopped!”, but somone in the street below heard me and decided to attack a red haired individual, that would be partially my fault for promoting the hate that inspired the attack.

The Clergy of the Catholic Church as I have proven previously with evidence such as the African Bishops or the Bishop of Illinois exorcising homosexuals is clearly preaching hate.

 

[NekoNecro]

Well then, you have a very large difference of agreement with the Church. The Church teaches that the life-giving, self-sacrificial love of husband and wife are real and concrete sacramental manifestations of Jesus Christ’s love for humankind. We do not imitate Christ as lone rangers, but in relationships like “husband and wife”, “mother and daughter”, “friend and friend”.

If this is the case, how can the Catholic Church demand lifelong celibacy of those with SSA or from the Clerics of the Latin rite? The double standard rears it’s head yet again.

Marriage is either a manifestation of Gods love or it is not, if it is then it is immoral to deny it to members who could otherwise partake in it.

I think that friendships can also be a place where we live for one another incarnationally, dying to ourselves and loving one another. But friendship is not the same as marriage.

Agreed, there is a difference between friendship and marriage, but this is reason enough to ban gay marriage? By this logic we should ban heterosexual marriage, because they could just settle for friendship too.

I essentially lost my dad, when I was six. Another mom would not have replaced him. Children deserve a mom and a dad.

My father died when I was two, we don’t always get an ideal way to grow up but growing up without a father didn’t do me any harm (contrary to the myth not having a male influence has not turned me gay). I’d have rather grown up with just my Mom, or even better two mom’s than alone in a goverment ran facility.

Legalizing/normalizing activities always leads to an improvement in the quality of life of those who practice those activities. If we legalized theft, that would make thieves live less destructive lives.

…Blinks

I’m…Really sorry…If you have been brainwashed so much to belive this. There is no possible link whatsoever between a malicious activity like stealing done without consent and a consensual relationship.

I’m just stunned reading this. This is pure insanity.

I don’t think there is any kind of support (except sexual) that only a spouse can provide. Very close friends can be quite intimate, and there’s no reason why two close friends can’t live together. I think there is a lot of value in many gay relationships, just like as in any other close friendship.

I disagree with this, I have many good relationships with people but no matter how good a friendship it is I just won’t be as important in someones life as their spouse or even girl/boyfreind.

Obviously, we can change all sorts of laws to make this possible. We don’t have to legalize gay marriage to effect this change.

We can’t, a motion was put forward for this and it was dismissed by the court. The only option is marriage, since the goverment wishes to emphasize the importance of that above all else.

And how exactly are we not allowing homosexual relationships to operate?

By continuing to deny them the ability to make a formal vow like any other couple, by denying them inheritance rights, by denying them the right to adopt, by denying them the right to take out mortgages…Shall I keep going?

In essence, you are jumping from the premise that “homosexual relationships provide certain benefits, and don’t harm anyone” to the conclusion that “homosexual relationships should be called marriages”. And when I ask you for a positive social advantage to this change in the law, you just tell me more about how gay people aren’t harming anybody else, and how gay relationships can be beneficial.

Just read above, even if there were no benefits whatsoever for gay marriage that isn’t a reason to ban it. Tobacco is if anything a plague upon society with that it does to healthcare systems and the abuse of farmers, but I don’t see anyone fighting to ban that!

I agree with all that. Now tell me why they should be marriages.

You might want to start by explaining what your understanding of a marriage is.

I know what a marriage is in Catholic Teaching and the French Legal system, and the former is not what I think it should be.

I think the British have the most eloquent secular definition of marriage, that marriage should be a public show of devotion and affection along with the union of assets between two persons of either sex.

 

[NekoNecro]

I don’t know how you were using them, hence why I asked.

Actually the Church Fathers were unanimous in that celibacy was better than sex, even sex within marriage

Paul also said it was better to marry than to burn, I’m not quite sure how this is relevant.

The Church teaching isn’t the problem, the application by the theologically illiterate and those who don’t care is.

Actually it is, because it is the Church’s teaching spurring the hate. If the Church wasn’t preaching this, there would not be LGBT suicides or persecution as there has been.

I’m not so sure that the optimal gay couple is as effective as the most optimal heterosexual couple.

I’m very confident they are, I’d wager any amount of money on it.

Correlation≠causation, it could just as easily have been due to a decline in bigotry.

Nope, it was very clearly as a result of having a partner to love and support them.

That’s false, for the vast majority of human history the love of friends was placed higher than that of spouses.

Only because dynastic ties and indeed in Catholic territories the irrelevancy of love in marriage made it so. Thankfully again, we’ve moved on since then.

Yes, there should be a way for them to take care of that, but that doesn’t necessarily mean marriage.

It’s the only option in some cases, in my country marriage is the only thing that trumps the claims of blood, and there is adamant refusal to change the importance of marriage in out society (yes, we allow gay marriage and that is just as important to us).

I think it would be wrong to criminalize homosexual relationships, that doesn’t mean I think it is right to have gay marriage.

That’s exactly what prohibition does,

Marriages is not about love.

I cannot possibly disagree more, again thank God almighty we’ve moved on i the first world since those dark days where you married a spouse for their wallet or bloodline rather than because you actually liked them as a person.

Just another area the Church needs to drag itself out from the dark ages in.

 

[NekoNecro]

I

It should interest you that ten years after women in the US gained the Vote in 1930 ***Pius XI ***formally condemned it as an abomination and a disgrace against the dignity of women. It was that late in the game the Church finally decided to stop oppressing women. The facts are the facts.

Sorry, I have to correct myself here but I can’t edit the text now. It was Pius XI not Pius IX. I’m getting my dates messed up here.

 

[edwest2]

“Truth” is clearly subjective. If it wasn’t you’d have taken up my challenge, both countered my evidence and chain of logic and proven me wrong.

I ask again for the fifth time, Prove me wrong. If you can’t, at least accept the facts, how else do any of us learn?

Here’s Church teaching again:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[NekoNecro]

Here’s Church teaching again:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I have already proven to you that current church teaching is flawed and in need of remedy, I ask again for the sixth time for you to prove the points I made to you wrong.

Parroting the party line, a line that clearly mistaken and has been proven immoral is not helping you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If this is the case, how can the Catholic Church demand lifelong celibacy of those with SSA or from the Clerics of the Latin rite? The double standard rears it’s head yet again.

Marriage is either a manifestation of Gods love or it is not, if it is then it is immoral to deny it to members who could otherwise partake in it.

Let’s see, where to start?

(1) The Church doesn’t demand lifelong celibacy of those who have SSA. I have SSA, and I’m married.
(2) The Church doesn’t demand lifelong celibacy of anyone. Celibacy is a free gift, and following Jesus is an opportunity we have. But if we choose to follow Jesus, and we are not married, Jesus will give us the gift of celibacy.
(3) The fact that marriage is one way to manifest God’s love does not imply that it is the best way for everyone to manifest Christ’s love. I have single friends who are a powerful gift to me, in a way that they couldn’t be if they were married.

Agreed, there is a difference between friendship and marriage, but this is reason enough to ban gay marriage? By this logic we should ban heterosexual marriage, because they could just settle for friendship too.

See now, you’re shifting the burden of proof, as if the Church and the State had always been in support of gay marriage, and now the Church was trying to oppose it. But the burden of proof is clearly on the person who is trying to change a custom, since customs have macrocosmic implications that we can’t even begin to imagine. And the Church has always opposed gay marriage. So your job is to prove why the Church should support a redefinition of marriage.

My father died when I was two, we don’t always get an ideal way to grow up but growing up without a father didn’t do me any harm (contrary to the myth not having a male influence has not turned me gay). I’d have rather grown up with just my Mom, or even better two mom’s than alone in a goverment ran facility.

Notice here that you don’t deny the key assertion I made: that children have a right to a mom and a dad. You had a right to a dad. At any rate, I’m sorry your dad died.

(Also, why would “being turned gay” constitute harm, on your view, since you don’t think there is anything bad about homosexual activity?)

…Blinks

I’m…Really sorry…If you have been brainwashed so much to belive this. There is no possible link whatsoever between a malicious activity like stealing done without consent and a consensual relationship.

I’m just stunned reading this. This is pure insanity.

I’m making a logical point. I wasn’t drawing a connection between theft and gay relationships. I was simply pointing out that the legalization of ANY activity reduces the collateral harm of that activity. It doesn’t matter if the activity is naturally good or naturally bad. Interracial marriage is naturally good. When interracial marriage was legalized, it reduced violence in a number of ways. (And surely you aren’t going to accuse me of the terrible crime of comparing homosexual relationships with interracial marriage!)

I disagree with this, I have many good relationships with people but no matter how good a friendship it is I just won’t be as important in someones life as their spouse or even girl/boyfreind.

Well, historically, that hasn’t been true – as Joie pointed out above. Our current culture does friendship very badly, partially because we don’t live together very often. If you live together with a friend for years, that relationship can be as significant as a marriage.

We can’t, a motion was put forward for this and it was dismissed by the court. The only option is marriage, since the goverment wishes to emphasize the importance of that above all else.

So write a constitutional amendment! Sheesh. Of course, we can always change the laws. The courts are not some sort of final arbitrator of all things.

By continuing to deny them the ability to make a formal vow like any other couple, by denying them inheritance rights, by denying them the right to adopt, by denying them the right to take out mortgages…Shall I keep going?

(1) They can make a formal vow. Who’s stopping them?
(2) No one has a right to adopt, and no one has a right to be a parent.
(3) Who is denying them the ability to have joint mortgages?

Just read above, even if there were no benefits whatsoever for gay marriage that isn’t a reason to ban it.

No one’s talking about banning it. It’s already banned, in most places.

I think the British have the most eloquent secular definition of marriage, that marriage should be a public show of devotion and affection along with the union of assets between two persons of either sex.

I’m open to arguments for legal gay marriage. But you seem to be after something else. You seem to be saying that the Church should redefine marriage. But you haven’t mentioned many benefits to such a change, and you certainly haven’t mentioned any *theological *benefits.

The Church does not see marriage as merely a social arrangement ordered to the good of the married parties. It sees marriage as a divine arrangement ordered to the good of the married parties, the good of children, and the good of the body of Christ in the Church. Your arguments don’t even begin to explain how these goods are fostered by gay marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I disagree, they do happen but the ratio is closer to one mistake out of ten than 1:1. Fear and timidness are the enemies of enlightenment. We have to charge bravley ahead ready to face whatever it is might result.

I am confident there are no noteworthy negatives of homosexual marriages, short of the lies (and they are that) traditional Christianity and other select religions have chosen to lump upon them.

I am asking you why we should change the existing laws, and the existing rules of the Church. Saying that there are no disadvantages to changing these laws and rules – even if you were right about that – would not answer my question. There are no noteworthy disadvantages to making a law that all priests must own a paisley sweater, but there’s no reason to make that law, either.

The Catholic church was traditionally an enemy of womens sufferage, since it belived a womans place was in the home (people.opposingviews.com/catholic-church-womens-suffrage-2388.html).

But the women’s rights movement grew out of the soil of the Catholic Church, even if the Church opposed it. At any rate, I am not defending the argument that the Church never changes, so don’t confuse me with your other interlocutors.

You know from earlier on in this thread that the Catholic Church was for many centuries also an enemy of abolitionists.

No, I’m not sure about that. I’d be interested to study the history of it. The Catholic Church does not have a fixed and immutable opposition to all forms of slavery even today – and, if you ask me, rightly so. There are exceptional circumstances in which slavery (or what amounts to slavery) is justified. Case in point: insane asylums. If you can explain to me why someone being committed to an insane asylum is not essentially identical to slavery, then I will be impressed.

There were many Christians in favour of Womens sufferage and against slavery, but (as ashamed as I am to admit it) these were Protestants, not Catholics. It was Protestant countries that first ruled against slavery, not Catholic ones.

I’m not ashamed to admit that. I’m glad to give credit where credit is due.

I’m sorry, but this is outright untrue! Celtic women were equal to men in their societies and women have always held positions of prominence in Asia (In Persia for instance there was long history of female Satraps, Kings).

Non sequitor. I said that Roman women were subjugated, and you tell me that Celtic women were not subjugated. OK, fine. (Though I am very unsure about your suggestion that Persian women were not oppressed. *Some *weren’t, but I imagine most of them were.)

It was the Hellenistic world that was anti-woman, indeed the Catholic Church merely carried on the traditions as propagated by Rome and before that the multitude of Greek Polis.

The Hellenes, and the Africans, and the Asians, and the Azteks, and the Native Americans, and the Gauls, and…

The subjugation of women is not some Greek quirk in history.

I’m not saying this one is the Catholic Churches fault, but Patriarchy was not the norm in the ancient world prior to the Greek colonization and Rome.

Source? I’m not just going to take your word for it.

Ok, I’m sorry mister but if this is the case you might want to do some more reading yourself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

Plutarch in one of his histories plainly describes a homosexual wedding ceremony in relation to how this group operated. Homosexual Marriage predates Holy matrimony by at very least 500 years, albeit it’s very likely more.

Can you give me any more than one citation? Plutarch was an investigator of oddities, so his mentioning this wouldn’t indicate that it was common.

It is doctrine that moves them. If I was to stand on my balcony today and proclaim that “Gingers are child abusers, they must be stopped!”, but somone in the street below heard me and decided to attack a red haired individual, that would be partially my fault for promoting the hate that inspired the attack.

But the Church doesn’t say that gays are child abusers, and it doesn’t say that gays must be stopped. It deals with gay sex like it deals with masturbation, as a thing that is immoral but not subject to legal censure.

The Clergy of the Catholic Church as I have proven previously with evidence such as the African Bishops or the Bishop of Illinois exorcising homosexuals is clearly preaching hate.

The Church does not defend all the actions of its ministers.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ooops, I posted my replies in backwards order! Sorry, Neko!

 

[Nacho45]

Nice dodge. You made some very uncharitible claims, You have been challenged to back them up. You have failed do so with rational support.

But he said Vatican II changed all sorts of stuff so that ends the debate, right?

There are certain people who (a) know what they are talking about, (b) certain people who think they know what they are talking about, (c) certain people who admit they don’t know and (d) certain people who know but claim something entirely different.

After observing several posts I can’t decide if our friend falls into (b) or (d).

 

[Nacho45]

And here’s another one who can’t disprove my points.

You’re damn right,** I don’t want **homosexuals to be ashamed or guilty about forming a romantic relationship with one of their own gender. Because that is not wrong, or sinful as much as we might want to cling vehemently to the clearly subjective standards of a bygone age.

Man is not God, but neither is the Vatican. It is a great authority, but it is not God. It can err, and it has many times.

When it errs, we have to try and set things straight.

Bolded an important point.

The problem here with your view point is man didn’t say homosexual acts were sinful, God did, so you aren’t setting anything straight. You are simply making the waters muddy. What I find interesting is your claim man has, the Church specifically, passed erroneous teachings, but what you are doing is the same as you claim others have done.

 

[Nacho45]

Give it another ten-twenty years and we’ll see. I’m not a prophet, but it seems absolutely everyone but the Catholic Church’s leadership and it’s more orthodox followers can see where it is headed.

We know very well where the world is headed, but it isn’t where you think.

 

[Nacho45]

“Truth” is clearly subjective.

Actually, it isn’t at all, but if you abide by this incorrect standard you would clearly have no problem with the teachings of the Church.

 

[Nacho45]

I have already proven to you that current church teaching is flawed and in need of remedy, I ask again for the sixth time for you to prove the points I made to you wrong.

Parroting the party line, a line that clearly mistaken and has been proven immoral is not helping you.

All you have done is repeatedly voiced an opinion which is contrary to truth. The only thing you have proven is you don’t understand.

 

[Nacho45]

I study Theology 5 days a week Nacho.

Vatican II. The Church changed plenty then to help accommodate the world. I can pull out even more examples if need be, I’m quite familiar with the development of canon law.

The Church has changed countless times over history, and is more than able to do so again.

Congratulations on your studies. It’s a shame you are learning very little. By the way, my BA is religion.

You are very adept at ignoring a point and shifting to another, so I will say it again for good measure…

The Church does not change to fit you. You change to fit the Church. I will add, the Church has authority over you, not the other way around. In other words, for an individual to think he or she knows more than the collective of the Church after thousands of years is not only presumptuous, but extremely arrogant. You read a few books which, in your mind, makes you an authority. You are incorrect. Wisdom begins when you realize how little you really know. You are simply wrong in your assumptions regarding how you wish things to be when they really are something different.

I wish you the best of luck, for what its worth, but you will one day find the road you travel is an unhappy one. When this happens, remember you can take a different road. One which leads to truth. Don’t let your pride and arrogance prevent this from happening.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Church does not change to fit you. You change to fit the Church. I will add, the Church has authority over you, not the other way around. In other words, for an individual to think he or she knows more than the collective of the Church after thousands of years is not only presumptuous, but extremely arrogant.

I think you’re right, so far as it goes. The role of a theologian, however, is certainly to question – not with the goal of destroying the foundations of the Church, but with the goal of testing the strength of those foundations. If the Church is what we say it is, no amount of testing will topple it. This was, I believe, Newman’s understanding of theology, closely related to Aquinas’s understanding.

Just wanted to clarify that the Church isn’t looking for mindless submission, but intellectual rigor coupled with humility.

 

[NekoNecro]

(1) The Church doesn’t demand lifelong celibacy of those who have SSA. I have SSA, and I’m married.

Ah, then might I assume you are Bisexual? That explains why it didn’t do you any lasting harm.

I am sure your attraction to men marks you out from other practicing Catholics, but because you are also attracted to women since you’ve taken one in marriage you can otherwise live a fairly normal life.

“Pure” Homosexuals (if that’s even a term, ones who feel no attraction for the opposite sex whatsoever) do not have this luxury. They are sentenced to a life of celibacy, and are also barred from both the priesthood and a number of religious orders since BenedictsXVI’s recommendations on the subject.

(2) The Church doesn’t demand lifelong celibacy of anyone. Celibacy is a free gift, and following Jesus is an opportunity we have. But if we choose to follow Jesus, and we are not married, Jesus will give us the gift of celibacy.

Yes, it actually does. There are no other alternatives for non-bisexual gay people, those with the “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies Benedict spoke about.

Celibacy might or might not be a gift, being entirely asexual (no attraction whatsoever to anyone) myself I can’t really comprehend the desire not to be), but I can see clearly enough it is not for everyone.

(3) The fact that marriage is one way to manifest God’s love does not imply that it is the best way for everyone to manifest Christ’s love. I have single friends who are a powerful gift to me, in a way that they couldn’t be if they were married.

The difference is though they have had the option to seek marriage or a vocation out, homosexuals do not have a choice regarding how they lead their lives in this area, they are presented with a single option, lifelong celibacy.

We can say they can take part in the rest of normal life but let’s not kid ourselves, I’ve seen for myself how someone with SSA sticks out (not just my friend, I’ve seen three others at university try the Catholics Church’s Courage apostolate out, needless to say they’ve all stopped practicing, even the two without partners). They cannot retain good female freindships easily, because that is unseemly but by the same hand they can’t really have good male ones either, due to the “occasion of sin” and the homophobia abundant in parish life.

See now, you’re shifting the burden of proof, as if the Church and the State had always been in support of gay marriage, and now the Church was trying to oppose it. But the burden of proof is clearly on the person who is trying to change a custom, since customs have macrocosmic implications that we can’t even begin to imagine. And the Church has always opposed gay marriage. So your job is to prove why the Church should support a redefinition of marriage.

The only reason we have not had Gay marriage is because we previously lived in a Theocratic political climate since the rise of the Church for many centuries, where it was impossible to suggest things like womens sufferage and gay marriage on pain of death no less.

I’ve a rather charming quote from Archbishop Michael Sheehan in my book of Catholic Apologetics here, about how it is better to burn the non belivers than to suffer them for the sake of good catholic souls. Clearly the church has had a good many “customs” that we clearly see today as malevolent, and has adopted new ones formerly thought so because they are seen to be good rather than bad. It is clear to me, and to 54% of America’s practicing Catholics (features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/) that homosexual marriage has many merits making it worthy of adoption as a custom

 

[NekoNecro]

Notice here that you don’t deny the key assertion I made: that children have a right to a mom and a dad. You had a right to a dad. At any rate, I’m sorry your dad died.

We don’t have a right clearly, if we did people wouldn’t die. To have both biological parents is an ideal situation, but one we just aren’t all able to have.

I would assert the right children have a right to a loving family to take care of them, something adoptive parents of either gender would provide. Since many gay couples cannot produce children (for obvious reasons) many of them will be more inclined to adopt and reduce the number of children in orphanages. After all, if there were enough heterosexual parents qualified to the task there wouldn’t be any orphanages with children in!

(Also, why would “being turned gay” constitute harm, on your view, since you don’t think there is anything bad about homosexual activity?)

Oh it was this stupid theory this nun gave in a lecture at a university I was visiting about a year ago. Apparently men who grow up without a father are 80% more likely to be homosexuals. Total rubbish, and I even proved it when she took questions after the lecture.

Sadly I’ve heard it promoted several times by a number of different denominations, Catholic Church included.

I’m making a logical point. I wasn’t drawing a connection between theft and gay relationships. I was simply pointing out that the legalization of ANY activity reduces the collateral harm of that activity. It doesn’t matter if the activity is naturally good or naturally bad. Interracial marriage is naturally good. When interracial marriage was legalized, it reduced violence in a number of ways. (And surely you aren’t going to accuse me of the terrible crime of comparing homosexual relationships with interracial marriage!)

No, I think that is a perfect comparison. What I was objecting was you comparing a consensual relationship to a violent crime, it enters the realm of such a tedious comparison that it appears absurd.

Well, historically, that hasn’t been true – as Joie pointed out above. Our current culture does friendship very badly, partially because we don’t live together very often. If you live together with a friend for years, that relationship can be as significant as a marriage.

I agree that we underestimate the beauty of close friendship, but I do not think it matches the ties of marriage in force. I’ve lived with my current housemate for three years, albit we’ve known each other closer to about five. When you live with someone it’s hard to really keep secrets or not notice the little habits they have, so you do naturally gain a better relationship and understanding of them.

That said, I’m under no illusion that if her engaged-to-be-married lover asked her never to speak to me again she would drop me like a ton of bricks. There are some things you only do for a lover, and that trumps friendship of any kind.

So write a constitutional amendment! Sheesh. Of course, we can always change the laws. The courts are not some sort of final arbitrator of all things.

This was considered, but in France we just decided that there were too many benefits to be gained from Gay Marriage to go down this route. It’s a lot of hassle for absolutely no pay off, and it would have also diminished the value of marriages in our society. Gay marriage only emphasized it further by encouraging more people to take it up.

(1) They can make a formal vow. Who’s stopping them?

A formal vow without legal recognition is rather like a sweet wrapper with no candy inside. Pointless and just a bit of show with no actual substance.

(2) No one has a right to adopt, and no one has a right to be a parent.

We in France and the UK politely disagree, everyone has a right to undertake parenthood if they are capable, we deem single parents and homosexuals capable.

The UK goes a few steps further when it comes to matters such as IVF babies and partner adoption (which is not permitted here, and I’m not so supportive of for obvious reasons), but we aknowledge the importance a parent/child has for the healthy personal development for individuals and families and wider society.

(3) Who is denying them the ability to have joint mortgages?

Banks and the legal system, a lot of gay couples prior to SSM in my country had trouble getting on the property ladder because banks are far more reluctant to hand out motrgages to co-habiting couples and singles than married couples.

Sure, it’s possible if you’re middle class but for those who weren’t, they were pretty stuffed.

No one’s talking about banning it. It’s already banned, in most places.

The Catholic Church in UK/France along with a few other religions is screaming like a demented drug fulled banshee to have it banned again, forget peaceful protest some of the public announcements and demonstrations against are more reminicent of a Nazi rally, only with a tiny number attending. We’re all getting a little bit annoyed with the public proclamations of gays being demonic

 

[NekoNecro]

I’m open to arguments for legal gay marriage. But you seem to be after something else. You seem to be saying that the Church should redefine marriage. But you haven’t mentioned many benefits to such a change, and you certainly haven’t mentioned any *theological *benefits.

I would be interested what you define as a theological benefit, because that appears to be subjective to individual theologians. My priority is promoting a stable environment that fosters compassion, ethics and love. If we are speaking purely for benefits to the church it will do wonders to stop the faithful leaving in droves, surely that must be a benefit for their souls no?

The Church does not see marriage as merely a social arrangement ordered to the good of the married parties. It sees marriage as a divine arrangement ordered to the good of the married parties, the good of children, and the good of the body of Christ in the Church. Your arguments don’t even begin to explain how these goods are fostered by gay marriage.

It is good for the body of the church because it shows it is not totally detached from reality and will do much to stem the flow of Athiesm and Agnosticism being fostered by the current stance.

It is good for the children who otherwise would know no love or families of their own. There are not enough heterosexual couples willing to adopt and homosexual ones can provide everything they can.

It is good for the married parties on an emotional, spiritual and even physical level as the studies from Denmark have proven.

Ok, sorry it’s taken me so long to respond! I’ve not been able to get online but I’m here now