How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

[JimG]

Does anyone here not get this?

Being against gay marriage is not being nice. It’s being mean. That is the bottom line. Philosophical reasonings and verbal gymnastics will not win out against feeling good and being nice. It’s over, that fight is lost. It’s only a matter of now or later when it is law.

This country turned its back on the Lord long ago and indeed it would seem (in the words of St. Paul) we have been given up to our passions.

That’s exactly what worries me. Having lived through the last 50 years, it’s apparent that since the introduction and acceptance of the pill, we have increasingly given ourselves up to our passions. The results have been and will be disastrous. I grow tired of the arguments as the world looks increasingly apocalyptic.

“Adam and Eve After the Pill” documents the degeneration of society as a result of the contraceptive culture and the sexual revolution.

 

[BobCatholic]

That’s exactly what worries me. Having lived through the last 50 years, it’s apparent that since the introduction and acceptance of the pill, we have increasingly given ourselves up to our passions. The results have been and will be disastrous. I grow tired of the arguments as the world looks increasingly apocalyptic.

“Adam and Eve After the Pill” documents the degeneration of society as a result of the contraceptive culture and the sexual revolution.

My point exactly.

This all started with artificial birth control, and Christendom’s acceptance of it (except for the Catholic Church) in 1930.

From spiritual, then temporal. 1954 was when it was accepted in the USA.

 

[CopticChristian]

Does anyone here not get this?

Being against gay marriage is not being nice. It’s being mean. That is the bottom line. Philosophical reasonings and verbal gymnastics will not win out against feeling good and being nice. It’s over, that fight is lost. It’s only a matter of now or later when it is law.

This country turned its back on the Lord long ago and indeed it would seem (in the words of St. Paul) we have been given up to our passions.

Elixir,

Define Nice. It is nice when…

Define Mean. It is mean when…

Explain “this country” turned it’s back…you personify…this country…how do you define this country, by what measure can you gauge this country…do you believe that there is a consensus on this? Explain this…

 

[CopticChristian]

But I don’t think this has been shown. Marriage has many purposes, it seems to me, and **no one has convincingly shown that procreation and child rearing is the primary purpose of marriage. **

So infertile couples can’t get married?

Sarah Palin produced a kid with Down Syndrome. If a couple is likely to produce such a child, should they not get married?

The question assumes a connection between SSM and other types of marriages. What is that connection?

You need to refer to Loving vs Virginia and from whence the right to marriage came from,marriage and procreation are the rights of which they speak. I don’t know how to show you any more clearly.

 

[spencelo]

You need to refer to Loving vs Virginia and from whence the right to marriage came from,marriage and procreation are the rights of which they speak. I don’t know how to show you any more clearly.

You haven’t shown anything “clearly.” What do you think Loving says about marriage and procreation? Do you think Loving stands for the proposition that procreation is a necessary prerequisite for marriage? Yes or no?

 

[CopticChristian]

You haven’t shown anything “clearly.” What do you think Loving says about marriage and procreation? Do you think Loving stands for the proposition that procreation is a necessary prerequisite for marriage? Yes or no?

Spence,

You appear to be grasping for answers. You appear to be frustrated and that frustration is born of failure to recognize the essence of Skinner vs Oklahoma…the case was brought before the Court because of.

The right to marry?

The right to marry & procreate?

The case was brought because prisoners were being sterilized before they married for fear that they would transmit criminal genes. They had the right to marry if sterilized. So was the case about marriage? Oh no. It is about the right to marry and procreate and that is where the right came from as designated in Loving…

In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the** acts of marriage and procreation were fundamental rights of all people**, even though the Constitution does not specifically list them as such. Thus, a private sphere of conduct between individuals was being recognized.

We have seen this before…this is nothing new…there was this guy named Luther who felt that he should add the word “alone” to saved by Faith…but that never is seen in any writing in the Bible…

Here you are “Lutherinian” in your proposal asking me and everyone else to accept that the ruling says “marriage alone”…now Luther said he put alone in because it seemed to fit…and you are doing the same…patterns of thinking seem to transmit time…we have seen this before…

Find one sentence in Skinner where the right to marry is mentioned as marriage alone…let me know.

 

[spencelo]

Spence,

You appear to be grasping for answers. You appear to be frustrated and that frustration is born of failure to recognize the essence of Skinner vs Oklahoma…the case was brought before the Court because of.

The right to marry?

The right to marry & procreate?

The case was brought because prisoners were being sterilized before they married for fear that they would transmit criminal genes. They had the right to marry if sterilized. So was the case about marriage? Oh no. It is about the right to marry and procreate and that is where the right came from as designated in Loving…

We have seen this before…this is nothing new…there was this guy named Luther who felt that he should add the word “alone” to saved by Faith…but that never is seen in any writing in the Bible…

Here you are “Lutherinian” in your proposal asking me and everyone else to accept that the ruling says “marriage alone”…now Luther said he put alone in because it seemed to fit…and you are doing the same…patterns of thinking seem to transmit time…we have seen this before…

Find one sentence in Skinner where the right to marry is mentioned as marriage alone…let me know.

I asked a simple question and got a confused nonanswer. Here it is again: Do you think Loving stands for the proposition that procreation is a necessary prerequisite for marriage? Yes or no?

 

[BobCatholic]

The question assumes a connection between SSM and other types of marriages. What is that connection?

The connection is that marriage is being redefined to make sure all “sexual orientations” are treated equal and people with all “sexual orientations” are permitted to marry under the secular law.

Of course, the phrase “sexual orientation” will be redefined. Since it is now part of the definition of marriage (in the secular realm) it will also be redefined since the global issue is the redefinition of marriage.

It all depends on which group steps forward in line to fight for “marriage equality” next, after the homosexuals get their “marriage” as law.

 

[CopticChristian]

I asked a simple question and got a confused nonanswer. Here it is again: Do you think Loving stands for the proposition that procreation is a necessary prerequisite for marriage? Yes or no?

No.

Loving vs Virginia is about the right to marry based on Skinner vs Oklahoma that says marriage and procreation is a right. Loving vs Virginia says that marriage cannot be denied to a black man and white woman because of race that is contrary to the reason for denying the marriage which was to promote Racial Supremacy of whites through procreation. Get it!!!

 

[Fulminedes]

There are many intelligent men in the church, but this battle will never be won if you continue to fight the enemy’s fight. They harp on a heavily polarized twisting of standard morality, then refuse to define the terms in question, or to allow certain points of view from ever being represented. Specifically, the points of view of the people who used to be homosexual, but found a cure for the condition. If the church strongly researched this position, and used it’s considerable resources to aid in curing the condition - which is, after all, essentially a dissociative schitzoid pathology, which can in most cases be cured by therapy and honest effort - the enemy’s artificial appearance of moral high ground dissappears, and their whole argument is revealed as an attempt to sow confusion about a matter that is generally poorly understood.

As Voltaire said “If we are going to argue, let us first define terms”

If one doesn’t, this whole argument is a waste of space, for no conclusion could be drawn.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No.

Loving vs Virginia is about the right to marry based on Skinner vs Oklahoma that says marriage and procreation is a right. Loving vs Virginia says that marriage cannot be denied to a black man and white woman because of race that is contrary to the reason for denying the marriage which was to promote Racial Supremacy of whites through procreation. Get it!!!

And in fact, CC, (just so that certain others understand the specificity and importance of this ruling ), Loving was a restoration of the universal right to male-female marriage previously acknowledged, and artificially denied thereafter by the State of VA until this court case restored it to its original status: i.e., to all heterosexual couples legally free to marry (of age, unencumbered, etc.) and without restriction to personal origin.

Any broader interpretation of the term marriage (beyond male+female) would have been so stated by the Court, because that’s the way Court decisions work: any redefined or recategorized terms are made explicit within the published decision. Nothing covert or grander can be implied by the simplicity of the Loving decision. This is a dead issue, and has zeo relevance to attempts at institutionalizing same-sex “marriage,” which is merely an artifice and has no legitimacy.


(Just repeating the obvious for lurkers.)

 

[Santi2]

And in fact, CC, (just so that certain others understand the specificity and importance of this ruling ), Loving was a restoration of the universal right to male-female marriage previously acknowledged, and artificially denied thereafter by the State of VA until this court case restored it to its original status: i.e., to all heterosexual couples legally free to marry (of age, unencumbered, etc.) and without restriction to personal origin.

Any broader interpretation of the term marriage (beyond male+female) would have been so stated by the Court, because that’s the way Court decisions work: any redefined or recategorized terms are made explicit within the published decision. Nothing covert or grander can be implied by the simplicity of the Loving decision. This is a dead issue, and has zeo relevance to attempts at institutionalizing same-sex “marriage,” which is merely an artifice and has no legitimacy.


(Just repeating the obvious for lurkers.)

Elizabeth, on the many occasions that *Loving v Virginia *has been put forward for same sex marriage and refuted in CAF, one is almost moved to propose that we ought to have our arguments on *Loving *as a sticky.

 

[vera_dicere]

Recently a friend of mine who’s a Lesbian, responded to a post on FB I made about how homosexual couples should be banned from adopting. She pointed out she was a “second class citizen” and that without marriage, they could never be equal.

I think we need to stop that emotional sob story nonsense in its tracks.

People with SSA can vote, they can speak their mind, they can study and work where they please - as long as they have the grades and qualifications, they can live where they want - as long as they meet that country’s immigration laws et al, they can buy and sell, they can vote, if they are beaten or murder, their assliant is treated just like any other assliant or murderer - heck, in some places they get in more trouble if its found they committed their crime because of the SSA of the victim and so on and so fourth.

Considering there are people still alive on this planet who know what its like to be a truly second class citizen, its not right that the SSA are using such loaded emotional rhetoric. We need to start fighting fire with fire and demand evidence of their so called “second class citizenship”.

And yes, I’m in full agreement that we have lost what the true nature of marriage is. The Council of Lambert is somethign that came out of the bowels of hell, its impact on marriage and society’s view of it, has led to this mess we’re in today.

We must be more public in the definintion of both marriage and love. Proceative and unitive. Frankly, I think we need to really start attacking contraception. We need to support our Clergy to be brave and preach from the pulpit not just that contraception is wrong, but why it is wrong.

 

[Viviphilia]

My views on same-gender marriage changed recently. Just a year ago, I was opposed to same-gender marriage because I believe Western civilization needs to improve out fertility rates, and promoting traditional marriage would promote fertility rates. While I have not abandoned that consequentialist argument, I find it less compelling now.

It was a deontological argument which shifted my views. The simple fact of the matter is that sometimes, people change their gender. Some of those transgender individuals are in long-term loving relationships when they change their gender. Around 90% of relationships do not survive gender transition, and that travesty is due in part to society’s negative view of “gay marriage.” Since transgender individuals find it medically necessary to change their gender, it is morally wrong to punish them by making it difficult for them to marry, or to stay married. It is wrong to regulate such relationships.

Morally speaking, I believe heterosexuality should be promoted, and heterosexual marriage should be promoted. However, I find it morally necessary to permit same-gender marriage.

Aren’t Catholics supposed to abide by deontological morality rather than consequentialist morality?

 

[Viviphilia]

We must be more public in the definintion of both marriage and love.

Doesn’t love mean different things to different people? Why do you feel the need to define it for others?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, on the many occasions that *Loving v Virginia *has been put forward for same sex marriage and refuted in CAF, one is almost moved to propose that we ought to have our arguments on *Loving *as a sticky.

You’ll get no argument from me, Santi. Several of us have a whole collection of helpful, useful stickies on the subject which we have collected in the event that CAF administrators should ever request them from us.

God bless you, friend.

 

[CopticChristian]

My views on same-gender marriage changed recently. Just a year ago, I was opposed to same-gender marriage because I believe Western civilization needs to improve out fertility rates, and promoting traditional marriage would promote fertility rates. While I have not abandoned that consequentialist argument, I find it less compelling now.

It was a deontological argument which shifted my views. The simple fact of the matter is that sometimes, people change their gender. Some of those transgender individuals are in long-term loving relationships when they change their gender. Around 90% of relationships do not survive gender transition, and that travesty is due in part to society’s negative view of “gay marriage.” Since transgender individuals find it medically necessary to change their gender, it is morally wrong to punish them by making it difficult for them to marry, or to stay married. It is wrong to regulate such relationships.

Morally speaking, I believe heterosexuality should be promoted, and heterosexual marriage should be promoted. However, I find it morally necessary to permit same-gender marriage.

Aren’t Catholics supposed to abide by deontological morality rather than consequentialist morality?

Viv,

I agree with morality 100%. Yes I do and you will get no argument from me on that. Morality is where it is at and I am glad you pointed that out…yes sireee.

 

[CopticChristian]

Doesn’t love mean different things to different people? Why do you feel the need to define it for others?

All we need is love. Trumpets please…and of course Love is a many splendored thing…Loving you isn’t the right thing to do…Fleetwood Mac…

 

[Stephen168]

But I don’t think this has been shown. Marriage has many purposes, it seems to me, and no one has convincingly shown that procreation and child rearing is the primary purpose of marriage.
So infertile couples can’t get married?

See and response to post #112.

Sarah Palin produced a kid with Down Syndrome. If a couple is likely to produce such a child, should they not get married?

Define likely (response to post #112)

The question assumes a connection between SSM and other types of marriages. What is that connection?

No, you are assume a connection between SS unions and marriage. We claim there is one kind of marriage. So again and again, if same sex marriage, why not pedophile marriages or incest marriages?

 

[CopticChristian]

But I don’t think this has been shown. Marriage has many purposes, it seems to me, and no one has convincingly shown that procreation and child rearing is the primary purpose of marriage.

So infertile couples can’t get married?

Sarah Palin produced a kid with Down Syndrome. If a couple is likely to produce such a child, should they not get married?

The question assumes a connection between SSM and other types of marriages. What is that connection?

Spence, Spence,

This discussion is going nowhere…there has to be a starting point…just like the APA saying Homosexuality is not a disorder according to the DSM…and then the OHCAC says that it is disordered…

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

So here you see in the context of the OHCAC why Homosexuality is disordered. No discussion. No debate…take it up with the Vatican…

Marriage is a sacrament and here too you will see that the OHCAC takes the position in the sacrament that marriage is inclined towards procreation.

ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

Now all these questions about particulars don’t help you understand the Catholic answer to why Gay marriage is an abomination, an unthinkable form of aberrant behavior in the mind of Faithful Catholics and the OHCAC…

then you have to consider Skinner vs Oklahoma where the right of marriage and procreation are claimed. There seems to be a parallel…

So all your question have to be answered with this…

the OHCAC teaches and we believe that homosexuality acts are intrinically disordered, contrary to natural law closing the sexual act to the gift of life and as a sacrament marriage by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.

So any questions about marriage, Palin isn’t Catholic…all these questions have to be answered in the context of the OHCAC teaching as it concerns the Catholic premise that Gay marriage is disordered as a result of homosexuality being disordered.

It is not that hard to understand,OK…