My argument is that the Church does have to change, and has done several times in the past to accommodate advances in morality and ethics.
For every “advance” in ethics, there is at least one regression. 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. Christians led the charge against slavery, which was motivated by passages in Scripture and teachings about the dignity of the human person. 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.
…most of society has today come to accept that consensual homosexual relationships are not equivalent to the pederast/male rape as a sign of dominance ones that were very common in the ancient world.
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.
I think the Church should change to accommodate what is moral and right, after all does it not claim to be holy and good?
Of course it should change, if it doesn’t teach what’s moral and right. But we first need to be very clear that we know what’s moral and right, and the Church doesn’t. And that’s what I’m questioning you about.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
- 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 essentially lost my dad, when I was six. Another mom would not have replaced him. Children deserve a mom and a dad.
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.
- 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.
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.
-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…
Obviously, we can change all sorts of laws to make this possible. We don’t have to legalize gay marriage to effect this change.
- 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.
And how exactly are we not allowing homosexual relationships to operate?
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.
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.
, you caved in and resorted to cheap pot shots after my first response to you rather than providing evidence to disapprove my assertions and my own evidence.
