How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

[CopticChristian]

I get the sense that you’re trying to make an argument, and if so, I would encourage you to keep trying until you get it!

Spence,

When you open your browser take notice that it probably takes you to a website of your choosing. You then make a choice to log into Catholic Answers Forum. Next notice all the stuff that you see as you do that. This is Catholic Answers Forum. I am Catholic. I believe in the 10 commandments. Our Catechism is based in part on the 10 commandments. I am dutybound to uphold these beliefs and you said you would fight issues… I don’t fight issues I defend the Faith. I am a novice at this however so have patience. I believe that defending the Faith is called apologetics. I do this a bit now and again and in consideration you are attacking one of my beliefs as to the Sacrament of marriage then all I can do is defend it as best I can.

I would encourage you to recognize that as a welcome guest on the CAF I will do my best to be as cordial a host and guest as well. Since you bring what I consider anti-Catholic thought to this forum and please note again it is not Catholic Opinion, not Catholic Suggestions, not Catholic Questions, and I don’t see you posing any questions that would be considered to meet the need of a Catholic Answer…so you are asking for and getting resistance…I am OK with that…just understand that if you ask a question you get an answer and if you pose something contrary to Catholic beliefs you will get opposition…there will be no change in thinking here…

Some of these guys on this thread are pretty hard headed, not me, but wow, I know I have encountered some real zealots for the Faith…I am just a simple minded guy that sees stuff I don’t like and post accordingly and when I do like it I do that as well…

no fighting…:slapfight::blackeye:

 

[spencelo]

just understand that if you ask a question you get an answer

Fair enough. Here’s a question directly related to our discussion of SSM. Opposite-sex couples who are permanently infertile are free to marry; under the eyes of the law, they are no different than opposite-sex couples who can procreate.* Do you think the law should make the ability to procreate a prerequisite to marriage that applies to permanently infertile opposite-sex couples?* Yes or no?

 

[CopticChristian]

Fair enough. Here’s a question directly related to our discussion of SSM. Opposite-sex couples who are permanently infertile are free to marry; under the eyes of the law, they are no different than opposite-sex couples who can procreate.* Do you think the law should make the ability to procreate a prerequisite to marriage that applies to permanently infertile opposite-sex couples?* Yes or no?

Spence,

You are reframing the question of marriage as the law allows or does not allow based on the ability to procreate. This is different in my opinion than what you are trying to accomplish. SSM is a problem without a solution that is your issue. Have you noticed? I have, you signed into this post and this is the only place you have posted.

I post on about 4 different sites and have no agenda other than being Catholic. You may want to wander the posts and drop into some other stuff and give it a break. Go learn something about being Protestant, Science destroying Religion, listening to Christian music, being on a Protestant Planet…the end of the world…and other issues…you are otherwise going to get a reputation that you have one point of view and only one point of view…go look at the postings on transgendered in relationships…Viviphelia has some good posts. Look at the Brain and science…expand your horizons…

 

[spencelo]

I asked a serious question that deserves a serious answer. If you no longer wish to continue this discussion, that’s fine.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Objective overruled! Both counsels agree, contrary to CC’s initial contention, that marriage is a right – a claim amply supported by the very case CC cites, Loving.

The objection would be sustained, not overruled. You haven’t seen enough courtroom trials; I have. A specific claim, not a general claim, has to be established within certain agreed to parameters (or “stipulated to”) for the argument to proceed. Legal argument is a lot more precise than that, and if you’re arguing as one of the lawyers, you don’t get to define terms which are not agreed to by the other party. Simply saying “marriage is a right” in this case would be too broad even for the judge to agree to: the judge in that case would absolutely require a definition and an example, so that argument had a context.

You can keep pounding the table all you want, Counsellor, but the argument doesn’t fly – not here on CAF and not in a court of law, within that kind of terminology.

 

[Stephen168]

Fair enough. Here’s a question directly related to our discussion of SSM. Opposite-sex couples who are permanently infertile are free to marry; under the eyes of the law, they are no different than opposite-sex couples who can procreate.* Do you think the law should make the ability* to procreate a prerequisite to marriage that applies to permanently infertile opposite-sex couples? Yes or no?

Define ability. What is the purpose of marriage and why did the state choose to get involved?

 

[spencelo]

The objection would be sustained, not overruled. You haven’t seen enough courtroom trials; I have. A specific claim, not a general claim, has to be established within certain agreed to parameters (or “stipulated to”) for the argument to proceed. Legal argument is a lot more precise than that, and if you’re arguing as one of the lawyers, you don’t get to define terms which are not agreed to by the other party. Simply saying “marriage is a right” in this case would be too broad even for the judge to agree to: the judge in that case would absolutely require a definition and an example, so that argument had a context.

You can keep pounding the table all you want, Counsellor, but the argument doesn’t fly – not here on CAF and not in a court of law, within that kind of terminology.

You appear to be confused about the issue that me and CC were debating. Again, CC objected to the *general *claim I made that marriage is a right and insisted, rather, that it is a privilege (and gave the foolish argument about needing a license for driving). In other words, CC thought that marriage was not a right in any significant sense, or at all, and was proved dead wrong. It is far more accurate to describe marriage as a right than a privilege.

CC is no longer defending his prior claim. Why are you?

 

[spencelo]

Define ability.

Perhaps it would be more helpful for you to explain why the term has caused you confusion.

What is the purpose of marriage and why did the state choose to get involved?

Marriage has many purposes (plural), and I don’t think an in-depth discussion would be particularly relevant. As a factual matter, the State is involved. The question then is whether the distinction that the State has drawn – between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples – is rational or arbitrary.

 

[MidnightSun12]

We fight one issue at a time – nothing wrong with that.

It’s really quite sad that you’re working for the evil one.

You’re very intelligent and an excellent debator. You could help to save a great many souls with that kind of talent.

 

[spencelo]

It’s really quite sad that you’re working for the evil one.

You’re very intelligent and an excellent debator. You could help to save a great many souls with that kind of talent.

Well, I’m open to being convinced that I’m working for the evil one! But I suspect that our disagreement, at its core, is between your Catholicism and my nontheism.

 

[CopticChristian]

You appear to be confused about the issue that me and CC were debating. Again, CC objected to the *general *claim I made that marriage is a right and insisted, rather, that it is a privilege (and gave the foolish argument about needing a license for driving). In other words, CC thought that marriage was not a right in any significant sense, or at all, and was proved dead wrong. It is far more accurate to describe marriage as a right than a privilege.

CC is no longer defending his prior claim. Why are you?

Spence,

I am not debating. I admit to error. I agree that marriage is a civil right that is based in marriage and procreation based on Skinner vs Oklahoma from a secuar view. On the other hand Marriage is a Sacrament based on the teachings and my belief of the OHCAC.

I don’t care what the world does with this notion…I am going to go with Marriage as a Sacrament…this is a teaching that is 2000 years old…Good luck with trying to change this.

 

[CopticChristian]

Perhaps it would be more helpful for you to explain why the term has caused you confusion.

Marriage has many purposes (plural), and I don’t think an in-depth discussion would be particularly relevant. As a factual matter, the State is involved. The question then is whether the distinction that the State has drawn – between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples – is rational or arbitrary.

Vatican City is the only government I recognize when it comes to the Sacrament of Marriage. No discussion.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, I’m open to being convinced that I’m working for the evil one! But I suspect that our disagreement, at its core, is between your Catholicism and my nontheism.

Spence, just above where I am typing it says “Catholic Answers”…in your browser it says “Catholic.com”…welcome to Catholic Answers and our Catholicism…

 

[spencelo]

Spence,

I am not debating. I admit to error. I agree that marriage is a civil right that is based in marriage and procreation based on Skinner vs Oklahoma from a secuar view.

We all make errors, and I commend you for owning up to yours.

On the other hand Marriage is a Sacrament based on the teachings and my belief of the OHCAC.

I don’t care what the world does with this notion…I am going to go with Marriage as a Sacrament…this is a teaching that is 2000 years old…Good luck with trying to change this.

No one is trying to change the Catholic understanding of marriage – again, the debate over SSM is about our civil marriage and civil laws. I find that too often in the SSM debate, opponents confuse the two.

 

[spencelo]

Vatican City is the only government I recognize when it comes to the Sacrament of Marriage. No discussion.

Do you believe American should be a theocracy then? Do you believe that secular marriage laws should be dictated by Catholic beliefs?

 

[CopticChristian]

We all make errors, and I commend you for owning up to yours.

No one is trying to change the Catholic understanding of marriage – again, the debate over SSM is about our civil marriage and civil laws. I find that too often in the SSM debate, opponents confuse the two.

Spence,

You may not understand that there is no debate. The Catholic understanding and taught is a belief. Beliefs are formed at what are called a Meta level. In forming any belief, everyone sees the same thing.

We both have eyes, ears, taste…etc the same (name removed by moderator)ut. That information comes at us without any meaning. Our self reflection, imagination, memory and past experience place meaning on that information and thus we have a belief. Beliefs are difficult if not next to impossible to change by someone else. This comes at the expense of shedding and discarding some information to change the meaning.

Note this…you have applied meaning. I have applied meaning. The meaning I have applied is based on, I feel like one of those televenalists…now watch this…based on something that I “believe” is a teaching that is 2000 years old, was delivered by “God” to us…and that is a tough one to undermine…

Now I could conjecture you do not believe in God, as I understand God, I could conjecture that your self reflection is oriented differently than mine but only you know.

You will find Catholics unable to differentiate the secular from the OHCAC sacrament…it does not matter what the world does…I will not change…

 

[CopticChristian]

Do you believe American should be a theocracy then? Do you believe that secular marriage laws should be dictated by Catholic beliefs?

Spence,

This I believe is addressed in Veritatis Splendor. Protestant believe in a theocracy., this goes by the name "Dominionism’ and includes people like Palin, Huckabee, etc…the Catholic position is similar but accepts that in order to accomplish this that it should be what is called a “participatory theonomy”…read Veritatis Splendor to understand this…the answer is no…

 

[CopticChristian]

We all make errors, and I commend you for owning up to yours.

No one is trying to change the Catholic understanding of marriage – again, the debate over SSM is about our civil marriage and civil laws. I find that too often in the SSM debate, opponents confuse the two.

There is no confusion, on a Catholic website they are inseparable…go to a secular website if that is what you want…here it is tied to the OHCAC…that is what it is and that is what you get.

 

[spencelo]

Spence,

You may not understand that there is no debate. The Catholic understanding and taught is a belief. Beliefs are formed at what are called a Meta level. In forming any belief, everyone sees the same thing.

We both have eyes, ears, taste…etc the same (name removed by moderator)ut. That information comes at us without any meaning. Our self reflection, imagination, memory and past experience place meaning on that information and thus we have a belief. Beliefs are difficult if not next to impossible to change by someone else. This comes at the expense of shedding and discarding some information to change the meaning.

Note this…you have applied meaning. I have applied meaning. The meaning I have applied is based on, I feel like one of those televenalists…now watch this…based on something that I “believe” is a teaching that is 2000 years old, was delivered by “God” to us…and that is a tough one to undermine…

Now I could conjecture you do not believe in God, as I understand God, I could conjecture that your self reflection is oriented differently than mine but only you know.

You will find Catholics unable to differentiate the secular from the OHCAC sacrament…it does not matter what the world does…I will not change…

In other words, your “beliefs” are not amenable to rational argumentation and evidence.

 

[spencelo]

There is no confusion, on a Catholic website they are inseparable…go to a secular website if that is what you want…here it is tied to the OHCAC…that is what it is and that is what you get.

This may be a Catholic website, but if you live in America, you live in a country where church and State are separate; the dictates of the church do not govern civil laws. The bubble you live in isn’t just Catholic Catholic Catholic.