P
Presurmksdimnds
Guest
What a strange question…
Marriage wasn’t invented. It may have been named… ‘Marriage’ in some language or the other.
That’s like saying ‘before childbirth was invented’
- Status
Marriage wasn’t invented. It may have been named… ‘Marriage’ in some language or the other.
That’s like saying ‘before childbirth was invented’
E
epan
Guest
Those are your words, not mine. hehe. I said nothing about paint and corners. But I see my first point as a strength, and the second one as a weakness. For a thinking person to understand that weakness, then it is possible to become more discerning.I enjoyed your post. It does seem that they have painted themselves in to a moral corner - it now makes sense as to why they would leap from homosexuality to bestiality, when a rational, or should I say ‘non-catholic’ mind would not do that. Good post.
For example, there was, or maybe still is, a heated thread on transsexualism here. The Vatican generally discourages sex reassignment surgery, yet it has stated that in some cases, it is a humane option. Benedict XVI at one point, stated the the use of condoms might be the first step in a more responsible moral direction for some people, in some circumstance. So, there is a fine level of moral calculation at the top leadership, but this appears to me to sometimes be lost at the level of the laity.
My impression of Catholicism is that it is very codified, and requires some sophistication to apply that codification on a daily basis to deal with the subtleties of life. Some have that sophistication, and others don’t. The ones that don’t enjoy the comfort of the rules and regulations. This is analogous to the military, in some ways.
E
epan
Guest
This is actually a huge topic. Tread lightly. BTW, you will get more traction if you are respectful. There are many ways to state your opinion. This is actually an excellent place to work with an intellectual scalpel, and not a cleaver.
P
PetrusRomanus
Guest
The reason why contraception, masturbation, sodomy,fornication, aadultery, bestiality, incest, pederasty, polygamy, etc all get lumped together is because they all have one thing in common: It changes the way we view sex and goes against what sexual intercourse is ordered for.
E
epan
Guest
Your comment reminds me of a famous atheist who left Catholicism when he lost his faith. He was asked if he would be joining another Christian church. I don’t have the exact quote, but his response was to ask why who would leave such logical nonsense to join a denomination of illogical nonsense.I enjoyed your post. It does seem that they have painted themselves in to a moral corner - it now makes sense as to why they would leap from homosexuality to bestiality, when a rational, or should I say ‘non-catholic’ mind would not do that. Good post.
My point is not about his claim of nonsense, it is about the coherence of Catholicism. Of all the Christian traditions it is the most rational and logical. That is much of its appeal. I would not be so quick to call it irrational. If you take the time to understand it, then you will find that it is coherent and robust. Whether you agree with the theology is another matter, but I don’t think it is fair to call Catholic theology irrational.
What you might be referring to when you say that, is the requirement of faith. To some, faith seems to be a logical consequence of their life experience. To other people, it makes no sense. Without faith, one is not a Christian.
Now… Some Catholics will claim that the existence of God can be proved entirely by logic. My opinion is that 7 centuries of examination of that argument by great minds has found it to be lacking. For every logical argument for the existence of God, there is an equally logical counter argument. But this does not mean the the pro arguments are illogical. It merely proves that there are equally logical counter arguments. This is where faith plays a role, and that is a deeply personal decision.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Uhm… I’m not asking the slippery-slope questions based on Catholic moral doctrine.I enjoyed your post. It does seem that they have painted themselves in to a moral corner - it now makes sense as to why they would leap from homosexuality to bestiality, when a rational, or should I say ‘non-catholic’ mind would not do that. Good post.
But rather, I’m asking them from the perspective of your objective moral standards and your reasoning of our natural design.
So here they are again (for the twelfth time)
If society decides that incest is no longer an immoral or sinful thing, then you’re okay with that. Right?
How about pederasty?
How about bestiality?
How about co-ed bathrooms and showers in public schools?
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
They’re not morally equivalent.
They’re both of grave matter. They both cut a soul off from God’s graces.
However, the moral implications of the sin on a societal level can have a tremendous impact when accepted as a moral norm. Especially with an intrinsic evil such as homosexuality.
If it is an acceptable norm to sexually express ourselves contrary to our natural design - them by what objective standard do we reject other sexual expressions that are also contrary to the natural parameters of our design?
E
epan
Guest
The equivalency that I mention is that all of it is mortal sin. Without absolution, then it all leads to damnation. So, in a very important sense, it doesn’t matter whether you rob a bank or whether you masturbate. If you are in a state of mortal sin in either case, and you risk of damnation. Absolution is essentially equivalent, in either case. So in that sense, both acts inhere moral equivalency as well.
Do yo agree or disagree with my statement?
J
josh987654321
Guest
I believe that a homosexual union is wrong, that it’s okay if they are homosexual but it’s not okay for them to take part in their homosexual desires.
In Australia we have many people pushing for ‘Homosexual Marriage’, It’s mainly the media that are blowing a loud horn, the only people against ‘Homosexual Marriage’ that we hear about on the media are the extremists, like those who say something like “I’ll never have my children in a school with a homosexual teacher” or other extreme things.
I think if I told people, even unbelievers what I am about to mention that they may understand and I would like to know what you think.
Where do people think the word ‘Marriage’ comes from? It’s a religious word, it came from religion, and you cannot take a religious word and re-define it away from religion or remove the religion from it.
That’s why with regards to the Law, the Law should have nothing to do with the word ‘Marriage’ because they are Ignorant of it’s meaning, and it’s not theirs to define.
I don’t agree with a homosexual union, but I’m not going to force my beliefs on them by saying that they cannot do it, but I am going to be upset when they try to change a word (marriage) that me and many others already have a clear definition of, and hold with much respect.
‘Marriage’ is the union of a man and a women under god until death do they part, It has always meant just that, even since B.C.
If it doesn’t involve God than it shouldn’t be called a marriage, the thing that people don’t realise is that, It’s wrong of them to come up with their own definition of ‘Marriage’ and than force it onto us by teaching it in our schools.
If they quized me on ‘Homosexual Marriage’ I would just say “I believe the word ‘Marriage’ comes from God and is therefore not mine to change”
And "I don’t force my beliefs on others, so I don’t appreciate them trying to force their beleifs of ‘Marriage’ onto us by changing the law, That’s why it’s not discrimination to be against ‘Homosexual Marriage’ It’s actually discrimination to be for ‘Homosexual Marriage’, because they are trying to force their beliefs of marriage onto people like me who already have a clear definition of the word ‘marriage’ in which does not and will never include a homosexual union.
So the main argument is that it’s wrong of them to make up their own definition of ‘Marriage’ and have our children learn it, so the thing I am against is the word ‘marriage’ that they are trying to change, because we can’t force people not to sin with the Law, well we can try to but it’s very hard.
I think with the Law, instead of them trying to legalise ‘Homosexual Marriage’ They should be trying to Legalise ‘Homosexual (New Term)’ I wouldn’t agree with it but I wouldn’t oppose it by saying that they can’t do it.
Therefore it would be reffered to in the eyes of the Law as something like this:
A hetrosexual union known as (New Term) and a homosexual union known as (New Term) and a hetrosexual union known as (New Term) that involves a supreme being (God) is known as ‘Marriage’.
Anyway I’d like to see a politician or media figure speak of it this way, I wouldn’t agree with a homosexual union but I think by trying to ‘force’ them not to sin is an uphill battle, but we can stop them from using our religious word of ‘Marriage’ and removing all meaning from it.
Thank You for reading, please tell me what you think.
Josh.
In Australia we have many people pushing for ‘Homosexual Marriage’, It’s mainly the media that are blowing a loud horn, the only people against ‘Homosexual Marriage’ that we hear about on the media are the extremists, like those who say something like “I’ll never have my children in a school with a homosexual teacher” or other extreme things.
I think if I told people, even unbelievers what I am about to mention that they may understand and I would like to know what you think.
Where do people think the word ‘Marriage’ comes from? It’s a religious word, it came from religion, and you cannot take a religious word and re-define it away from religion or remove the religion from it.
That’s why with regards to the Law, the Law should have nothing to do with the word ‘Marriage’ because they are Ignorant of it’s meaning, and it’s not theirs to define.
I don’t agree with a homosexual union, but I’m not going to force my beliefs on them by saying that they cannot do it, but I am going to be upset when they try to change a word (marriage) that me and many others already have a clear definition of, and hold with much respect.
‘Marriage’ is the union of a man and a women under god until death do they part, It has always meant just that, even since B.C.
If it doesn’t involve God than it shouldn’t be called a marriage, the thing that people don’t realise is that, It’s wrong of them to come up with their own definition of ‘Marriage’ and than force it onto us by teaching it in our schools.
If they quized me on ‘Homosexual Marriage’ I would just say “I believe the word ‘Marriage’ comes from God and is therefore not mine to change”
And "I don’t force my beliefs on others, so I don’t appreciate them trying to force their beleifs of ‘Marriage’ onto us by changing the law, That’s why it’s not discrimination to be against ‘Homosexual Marriage’ It’s actually discrimination to be for ‘Homosexual Marriage’, because they are trying to force their beliefs of marriage onto people like me who already have a clear definition of the word ‘marriage’ in which does not and will never include a homosexual union.
So the main argument is that it’s wrong of them to make up their own definition of ‘Marriage’ and have our children learn it, so the thing I am against is the word ‘marriage’ that they are trying to change, because we can’t force people not to sin with the Law, well we can try to but it’s very hard.
I think with the Law, instead of them trying to legalise ‘Homosexual Marriage’ They should be trying to Legalise ‘Homosexual (New Term)’ I wouldn’t agree with it but I wouldn’t oppose it by saying that they can’t do it.
Therefore it would be reffered to in the eyes of the Law as something like this:
A hetrosexual union known as (New Term) and a homosexual union known as (New Term) and a hetrosexual union known as (New Term) that involves a supreme being (God) is known as ‘Marriage’.
Anyway I’d like to see a politician or media figure speak of it this way, I wouldn’t agree with a homosexual union but I think by trying to ‘force’ them not to sin is an uphill battle, but we can stop them from using our religious word of ‘Marriage’ and removing all meaning from it.
Thank You for reading, please tell me what you think.
Josh.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
As a personal matter of one’s own soul - yes.
However, you conflated personal sin with the deteriorating subjective moral standards of a societal slippery-slope.
I may have sinned. But if society suddenly changes the objective standard an encourages others to commit the same sin without moral reservation, we now have a growing world of people who are damned. No?
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
But again.
My original question was not from a doctrinal perspective. But rather, from the perspective of an objective moral truth.
E
epan
Guest
Now that I have stayed up all night, I need to start my day shift of work. I have been working in between posts as well. Where is the coffee? I will catch you guys later. Be nice to each other, please. We are all in this together, and we are all imperfect and good people.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I mean early man, who obviously had sex - tens of thousands of years ago.What a strange question…
Marriage wasn’t invented. It may have been named… ‘Marriage’ in some language or the other.
That’s like saying ‘before childbirth was invented’
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Why would I be OK with incest? You really are obsessed with the seedier side.
I have read other posts and I am beginning to understand why Catholics take this approach and make these leaps from, say homosexuality to bestiality, but you needn’t worry, you are more a victim of the clumsy doctrine. Your fears will not materialise - you can stand down.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Ah now comes the insinuation of projection - eh.
So why aren’t you “OK” with incest?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
As far as I can tell language changes all the time, it’s part of it’s beauty. ‘Gay’ used to mean ‘happy’ then it came to men gay or lesbian - now in the UK teenagers use it to mean ‘lame’
‘Marriage’ is no different. Most people know what ‘gay marriage’ means.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
My my my. It’s amazing how prudish and sexually conservative you can become all of a sudden, isn’t it.
J
josh987654321
Guest
The term ‘Gay’ ‘Marriage’ in itself is rediculous to me, because ‘Marriage’ involves the union under God, If God is removed from the equation, than it’s not a ‘Marriage’ at all, It’s just a ‘union of choice’ or ‘contract by law’ and to have ‘Gay’‘Marriage’ is really rediculous becuase any religious figure who thought of it ‘okay’ to unite a homosexual union under God would have to be incredibly Ignorant of their faith.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
I understand a bit more about why Catholics lump them together, but it is still irrational.
what does the phrase ‘sexual intercourse is ordered for’ mean - do you really believe that if a diety created our unimaginably large and complex universe and everything in it, that somehow he cares if a life form on a small planet out of billions is masturbating or not - really!
- Status