N
NotAllHere
Guest
Please, simply list her basic arguments, KISS please.
- Status
N
NotAllHere
Guest
If one said they had an attraction to multiple partners would you accept that as “fact” or would you see that as an lust of the flesh?The person tells you he experiences predominately same sex attractions. Can that not be simply accepted as a fact (from one you know and trust), rather than being characterised as “he is defining himself”…What is the reason for complicating and layering the situation?
R
Rau
Guest
Attraction is an awfully broad term. In this context, I assume you mean the kind of deep-seated tendency to which the CCC refers:
(ccc2358)
I have not heard of an equivalent regarding a “deep-seated tendency to multiple partners”. Of course, there are people who freely choose to have multiple partners (“swingers”, polygamy, etc.). I believe these people argue it is their choice to have multiple partners. No person with a predominant attraction to the same sex argues that that attraction was “chosen” by them, anymore than I argue I chose to be (sexually) attracted to women. I didn’t - I just was/am.
So, no - I would not accept that such an attraction was a deep-seated tendency. I would think that is a choice, in most instances at least. Perhaps there is a phenomenon of the kind you describe, but I’ve not heard of it.
A sexual attraction - whether oriented to the opposite sex, or the same-sex, is not itself lust. The Church does not view same sex attraction as sinful. It accepts it arises, with unknown cause. Such attractions are NOT intrinsically disordered.
R
Rau
Guest
I sympathise with you about the 59mins of YouTube video…
On your 2nd para above, arguments are readily put for same sex ‘marriage’ which rely on noting that a small % of Marriages are not generative, and that “therefore” another entire class of unions (ie. same sex), 100% of which also cannot be generative, must also be eligible to be called Marriage. It’s an attempt to say that the thing the unions have in common (love?, sexual activity?, capacity to raise children?) is that which makes them Marriage, and the things that distinguish them are irrelevant. It prefers to view Marriage as whatever the State says it is, rather than what it inherently is. If the State gets to decide, well clearly there is nothing to discuss, since the matter is rendered arbitrary.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
…and?
Honest question, I’m not sure what you are saying here. Are you adding your voice to the request that JimG summarise for us, or have you already dragged yourself lengthways through the whole thing and are now thinking “yeesh that was a long waste of time” or something else?
I disagree. It is rather pointing out that the assertion that ‘Marriage’ is all about the intention and ability to conceive without outside assistance simply does not make sense.
Same sex couples can both gestate and raise kids on their own, and can conceive with relatively trivial outside assistance. Many do. Many heterosexual married couples do not.
The phrase “rather than what it inherently is” rather begs the question - that is it assumes that Marriage “inherently is” what you believe it to be.
Now historically, the words “marriage”, "connubial, “nuptial”, “matrimonial” and so on all come from Roman civil legal tradition (that is, while religious blessings were a common if not universal part, the State defined and regulated the institution) so yes, it was indeed originally “whatever the State says it is”!
Now this in no way prevents christians, as they did, from coming along and using the same words to refer to their religious sacrament. Which may or may not be tied into something more fundamental. But the civil legal institution predates that, and seems (to me at least) to be more about the practicalities of two people committing to sharing a life together than about conceiving. E.g. not having to pay death duties on the house upon the death of one spouse, but waiting until both are dead.
We have other laws which cover the rights and duties of parents, after all.
But my point is that as you are repurposing a preexisting word surely you are the ones who should find a new word of your own if you are now unwilling to share with the original owner? Rather than demand that “the State” (i.e. everyone else, including a majority of ‘Catholics’) either limit its own definition to suit you or find a new word?
J
JimG
Guest
I’ve refrained from summarizing her talk for several reasons.
First, I watched the video of the talk because it was recommended by Abyssinia, who provided the link. I watched it to the end. For me, a one hour academic talk can be a lot more beneficial than an hour spent skimming CAF posts. Upon watching the talk, I thought it was worth adding my own recommendation.
In watching the talk, I wanted to see what Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse had to say in its entirety. It was not my intent to give myself a homework assignment or summarizing her talk.
Secondly, even if I summarize it, I do not necessarily summarize it in the way she would. She might find my summary inadequate. In some sense, a summary does not and cannot do justice to the complete text of a speaker.
Third, my reducing the talk to a few bullet points, those who might wish to take issue with Dr. Morse are instead able to simply argue against my bullet points rather than to engage Dr. Morse directly. It’s not really fair to the speaker or her subject.
Having said that, here is what I got out of it. She begins by addressing the question of the essential public purpose of marriage, and how a public purpose differs from a private or personal purpose.
Marriage has always been the preferred societal place for sex and procreation. One can have sex and procreation outside of marriage, but as we have seen recently, that leads to a lot of social chaos. The public purpose of marriage in her view, as the preferred place for sex and procreation, is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to each other.
Sex does have an intrinsic biological connection to procreation, whether any given union produces children or not. One might argue that procreation is not necessary, but then we die out after one generation.
Marriage provides a stable environment for families. Children have a right to be connected to both of their parents. Children have a legitimate interest in the stability of their parent’s union. This is an interest which parents have lately neglected, treating children as if they had no interest in marriage at all. But they do. Parents deny their children their legitimate interests through divorce, through adultery, through abandonment, through lack of commitment, and now through same sex marriage, wherein children must be de facto separated from their biological parents rather than attached to them, if the same sex couple wishes to have children at all. It is an injustice to children.
There is a legal principle, now severely battered, called “presumption of paternity,” wherein a husband was presumed to be the father of the children born to the marriage. Adultery was frowned upon and even illegal, so the presumption, while not infallible, at least tracked biology and the institution of marriage.
That presumption no longer works in same sex marriage. Now, there is a “presumption of parentage,” wherein each party in a same sex marriage (or other marriage) is presumed to equally be a parent to any children acquired during the union. Even being a birth mother in a lesbian couple provides no more right to parentage than the other party. This can come as a shock to a lesbian birth mother fighting for custody.
Indeed, the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ which any child can understand, are becoming increasingly inapplicable. Now it’s ‘parent 1,’ ‘parent 2’ and maybe even parents 3 and 4. There might, after all be the same sex couple, along with a sperm or egg donor, and perhaps a separate surrogate mother, whose womb is rented. So there could be a bio-mom, a bio-dad (somewhere) an egg donor, and a birth mom. Do they all get a place on the birth certificate? What are the child’s rights?
The net result is that marriage and procreation no longer tracks biology. A natural connection to one’s father and mother is no longer thought important, which leads in practice to dis-integration of the family structure. And that leads to dis-integration of society.
I could go on, but then I might also take an hour. If you don’t think marriage has anything to do with children, this won’t convince you. If you think that moms and dads are unimportant or interchangeable, you won’t care about whether sex tracks biology, or whether children ought to know their moms and dads.
Opposite sex unions are the only unions which can generate children naturally. They are the only unions which have the possibility of being conjugal, the only unions which can ever be marital.
And I apologize to Dr. Morse if I did a poor job of translating her talk into the format of an internet forum.
N
NotAllHere
Guest
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Concept of marriage comes from Genesis two, besides the “state” is subject to God, Romans 13, not the other way around.
A Hebrew word for marriage comes from Genesis 38 which predates Roman Government.
The English Word for marriage did not exist until about 1300
etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=marriage&searchmode=none
Concept of marriage comes from Genesis two, besides the “state” is subject to God, Romans 13, not the other way around.
A Hebrew word for marriage comes from Genesis 38 which predates Roman Government.
The English Word for marriage did not exist until about 1300
etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=marriage&searchmode=none
N
NotAllHere
Guest
Recently, this quote was used by someone at my local library to claim that marriage only has to do with property and inheritance. Does anyone know of any quotes from the American Founders that gives a more complete understanding of their views on marriage?
John Adams quote on marriage,
John Adams quote on marriage,
Original from: foundingfatherquotes.com/father/id/1#section=quotes
R
Rau
Guest
Same sex attraction gives rise to (particular) temptations of our flesh. But what gave rise to the SSA? What gave rise to my (and your? ) opposite sex attraction?
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Well, thank you for doing so anyway. For a dialogue to occur, it is necessary for both sides to occasionally be willing to do boring legwork to explain their side, even if that is of no obvious benefit to them.
The corollary, of course, is that neither side should be trying to make the other side do pointless boring legwork just to waste their time and ‘win’ by a process of attrition.
No, but it can give an idea of whether or not there is a new, interesting idea that would make it worthwhile to spend an hour watching the whole thing.
(Sadly, in this case, I cannot say that I have been persauded to watch the whole thing. But as that was what I had decided already from watching, or at least skipping through, the first ten minutes or so, you have lost nothing.)
Well, granted, but if you see it instead as them engaging with you, not Dr Morse, is that not worthwhile? However, given your reservations I will not address the arguments you report, and simply say thank you again for the time you have taken to respond.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
That does not define ‘marriage’, and does not (of course) use the exact word “marriage” or even a root word that has now evolved into “marriage”.
That is a religious opinion. If you espouse the idea that it is OK for you to force your religious views on others by means of law, you have shot yourself in the foot when it comes to objecting to others forcing their religious views on you by means of law. Bearing in mind that you are now in a minority in pretty much all the western world on the issue of same sex marriage. Even among those who self-identify as ‘Catholic’.
A hebrew word. Although you don’t say which word, it certainly was not a root of the modern word “marriage”
Sure, not in the final modern form. I’m actually surprised it goes back that far. But the root existed long then, going back to the latin maritare, and the institution is recognisably the same.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that what you see as ‘marriage’, which presumably stems from the thing referred to in Genesis, is different from the civil legal thing that was known in ancient Rome and gave rise to the word “marriage”, then you intrinsically argue that it is different. QED
So if you are not happy sharing the word “marriage” with gays (or, for that matter with heathens such as myself) then you are the ones who should find a new word, or learn to live with sharing it. You have neither the legal nor the moral right to force others to find a new word.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Of course it can and should be accepted as fact…what am I supposed to assume? Someone tells me that they experience “predominately same sex attractions”…am I to consider that a lie? NO! I take that as an honest admission and consider that person to be a homosexual.The person tells you he experiences predominately same sex attractions. Can that not be simply accepted as a fact (from one you know and trust), rather than being characterised as “he is defining himself”…
I don’ t believe I am “complicating and layering the situation.” I think I am simplifying things. A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in same gender sexual conduct or desire to participate in such conduct.
I say “defines himself or herself” because since they are physically heterosexual, we have to take their word for being homosexual…they really can’t prove that they are…
You, however, seem to be re-assigning a person who experiences predominately same sex attractions (or desires to participate in such) as something other than a homosexual.
To me, this is complicating and layering the situation.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Could you explain what you mean by someone being “physically heterosexual”?
R
Rau
Guest
Yeah, that was my question too. I suspect it is to support the idea that same sex attraction is a resolvable affliction sitting on top of the true heterosexual person “underneath”. The idea of requiring the individual to “self-define” himself, rather than just experience the attractions, seems to hint at the idea SSA is a “belief” of the individual, rather than a reality.Could you explain what you mean by someone being “physically heterosexual”?
For my part, I have no idea what causes SSA.
R
Rau
Guest
This does sound like a pretty special relationship. Man + Wife.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Sure, but it is not clear to me that Gen 2:24 gives a definition of marriage, at all and certainly not of the modern English word marriage. No one is actually attacking heterosexual marriage, despite some of the rhetoric.
Even granting, for the sake of argument, that genesis did give a clear definition of the Catholic sacrament that you now call marriage, but accepting also for the sake of argument that the latin words maritare etc existed and referred to State-defined legal civil Roman marriage long before Christians started using them to refer to their sacrament, would you see my point that if the word can only refer to the sacrament or to civil marriage, civil marriage has a prior claim on the word?
Also if one side refuses to share a name for their sacrament with a civil institution, should those who refuse to share be the ones to seek a new, unique term for their sacrament?
M
makaroth
Guest
First of all, let me say that this is my first post here. Let me also say that I am gay and the reason I came to this forum was to test the waters, so to speak. You see, I left Christianity as a teenager (I am now 26) and I have spent a long time searching spiritually, including within neopaganism. Neopaganism ultimately felt empty to me and I’ve only recently realized that perhaps going back to my roots might help, and since I have begun that exploration I have felt a deep calm like I have not felt in a long time. I truly feel I belong in the Church though I have never been baptized. I remember as a child going to Mass occasionally and feeling so at peace.
I also understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The Church acknowledges that it is not a choice but maintains that since sexual actions between persons of the same sex cannot result in the birth of a child, they are inherently “against” the natural order of man, woman, child. To properly understand the Church’s teaching, you must divorce yourself from the fundamentalist notion that homosexuality is somehow “gross”, “disgusting”, “weird”, etc. You must divorce yourself from the idea that there is something wrong with BEING gay. You are, and this the Church and Christ talking, commanded to respect and love each and every person as they were your brother and sister. The Church’s teachings should not be treated as a bully pulpit, nor should they be used as a bludgeon against all who are not perfect and whole (because not one of us is). Some of you sound more at home in a fiery charismatic non-denominational setting than members of the one holy, catholic church.
To be a Catholic, in my mind, is not to crusade as once was done. It is to stand firm but also to yield with the wind. That means that if you want to attract more people to the Church (and to God), you must stop speaking from bigotry (even if that is not the intent, some posts here are couched in it) and speak from understanding. I AM gay. I AM a person. My partner and I DO occasionally do things the Church does not approve of, just as many heterosexuals masturbate, just as many straight couples use birth control. These are all essentially the same “disordered” acts because they involve sexual acts that do not result in birth, and singling out gays with the gusto and fire that some of you do makes me seriously question your whether you’re using Church teachings as an excuse to mask your bigotry or if you are so hurtful and crude toward your relatives and friends who are guilty of these things.
I am planning to begin RCIA soon (a little late, but hey now better than never). I do not intend to yield on this but I will be deferent and respectful. I would encourage many of you to take that to heart.
Also there is no legitimate secular argument against gay marriage because secularism inherently accepts naturalism and science as adequate guides for understanding the world. Thus, any secular argument against gay marriage must argue that gay persons are somehow unnatural entities, when the body of science we have disagrees. Even the Church disagrees on that point.
Just my (overly long) 2 cents.
I also understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The Church acknowledges that it is not a choice but maintains that since sexual actions between persons of the same sex cannot result in the birth of a child, they are inherently “against” the natural order of man, woman, child. To properly understand the Church’s teaching, you must divorce yourself from the fundamentalist notion that homosexuality is somehow “gross”, “disgusting”, “weird”, etc. You must divorce yourself from the idea that there is something wrong with BEING gay. You are, and this the Church and Christ talking, commanded to respect and love each and every person as they were your brother and sister. The Church’s teachings should not be treated as a bully pulpit, nor should they be used as a bludgeon against all who are not perfect and whole (because not one of us is). Some of you sound more at home in a fiery charismatic non-denominational setting than members of the one holy, catholic church.
To be a Catholic, in my mind, is not to crusade as once was done. It is to stand firm but also to yield with the wind. That means that if you want to attract more people to the Church (and to God), you must stop speaking from bigotry (even if that is not the intent, some posts here are couched in it) and speak from understanding. I AM gay. I AM a person. My partner and I DO occasionally do things the Church does not approve of, just as many heterosexuals masturbate, just as many straight couples use birth control. These are all essentially the same “disordered” acts because they involve sexual acts that do not result in birth, and singling out gays with the gusto and fire that some of you do makes me seriously question your whether you’re using Church teachings as an excuse to mask your bigotry or if you are so hurtful and crude toward your relatives and friends who are guilty of these things.
I am planning to begin RCIA soon (a little late, but hey now better than never). I do not intend to yield on this but I will be deferent and respectful. I would encourage many of you to take that to heart.
Also there is no legitimate secular argument against gay marriage because secularism inherently accepts naturalism and science as adequate guides for understanding the world. Thus, any secular argument against gay marriage must argue that gay persons are somehow unnatural entities, when the body of science we have disagrees. Even the Church disagrees on that point.
Just my (overly long) 2 cents.
M
MacQ
Guest
The most common secular arguments against it are:
- that it undermines traditional marriage (I don’t see how)
- that society is better off with a mom and dad (duh. but that doesn’t make gay people un-gay, and lots of kids are in one-parent homes or horrible mom and dad homes. Allowing gays to have civil unions (which is what we all have in the eyes of the state)…will not turn more people gay or deprive any kid of a mom and dad home.)
M
MacQ
Guest
:tiphat:
:clapping:
:yup:
I WISH YOU GODSPEED on your RCIA journey.
I know others who have made it…I hope you find yourself as welcomed and loved as they have been. Do not be deterred by things you read here…you have it right.
And thank you for saying it so well.
- Status