Illinois bishop faces challenging audience at talk on same-sex marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarcoPolo said:
If it is or if it is not inevitable, we are called to say something and stand for the truth and the best interest of the familial foundation vital to a stable society. I think part of the apologetic is to point out the impoverished, emotion-charged basis for this cause.

There are even atheists who recognize that this movement is founded on a certain pedigree of “bullying” that you must accept their dogma or face ridicule and impunity. See the article: agenda

That should also be pointed out. The entire movement is built on a house of emotional straw. Whether the matter becomes “legal” or not, our defense of truth and marriage should remain.
Click to expand...
Just for fun, Marco, when you repeatedly claim that proponents of gay marriage use only emotion to make their arguments, to what are you specifically referring?
 
.Regardless of specific claims, does anyone here think universal gay marriage is anything but inevitable at this point?
Click to expand...
I reiterate my post above. Homosexual union cannot be equated with marriage without equating marriage and that is permanantly abhrrent to the majority of the super-majority. You could say that many people have a live and let live attitude and even that being gay is ‘normal’ buthose same people would, most likely, not permit you to callthem “gay” because it goes against their very strong social and sexual needs as heterosexuals.

The “needs” of one will A L W A Y S run afoul of the values of the other. This is an INESCAPABLE and permanent truth.

One could also argue that, under the big “marriage” tent there is room for everyon. This neglects the true nature of marriage and the reason for the Term, which is the creation of something which is ALWAYS exclusive by definition and nature, and that exclusivity has worn the mantle of being “sacred” in one form or another in man’s existence. The “Term” is not one to be trifled with and if ever it comes to encompass homosexual unions too it will be hyphenated OR, heterosexual marriage will move off to another term where it will enjoy its original exclusivity.
 
gracepoole said:
Just for fun, Marco, when you repeatedly claim that proponents of gay marriage use only emotion to make their arguments, to what are you specifically referring?
Click to expand...
Take for example just from the article in the OP. One proponent countered the bishop with “That’s insulting!” Take the nuns ad populum appeal to “polls” to determine truth. That goes hand-in-hand with the emotional: you want to be in with the in-crowd don’t you… Take the woman who justifies her son’s homosexual behavior which she knows is fine “because she’s his mother.” And therefore the bishop “needs to listen to mothers.”

None of these are rational defenses grounded on reason. They are all fallacious appeals to some emotional tug.
 
gracepoole said:
Wow, I had no idea that my question would incite such an impassioned response. Why would I think universal gay marriage is inevitable? Seems like the better question is why wouldn’t I think it’s inevitable? I read the news, as well. I think there’s more chance of reinstating prohibition than of putting the gay marriage genie back in the bottle.
Click to expand...
I was of the position that whether or not it is inevitable, the response of the faithful is no different.

For instance:The preacher of the Gospel will therefore be a person who even at the price of personal renunciation and suffering always seeks the truth that he must transmit to others. He never betrays or hides truth out of a desire to please men, in order to astonish or to shock, nor for the sake of originality or a desire to make an impression. He does not refuse truth. He does not obscure revealed truth by being too idle to search for it, or for the sake of his own comfort, or out of fear. He does not neglect to study it. He serves it generously, without making it serve him. (Pope Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi, 78)
 
Least said:
I reiterate my post above. Homosexual union cannot be equated with marriage without equating marriage and that is permanantly abhrrent to the majority of the super-majority. You could say that many people have a live and let live attitude and even that being gay is ‘normal’ buthose same people would, most likely, not permit you to callthem “gay” because it goes against their very strong social and sexual needs as heterosexuals.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand you here. “Homosexual union cannot be equated with marriage without equating marriage,” for example. I’m also not sure how your point in the final sentence above connects with the conversation.
Least said:
One could also argue that, under the big “marriage” tent there is room for everyon. This neglects the true nature of marriage and the reason for the Term, which is the creation of something which is ALWAYS exclusive by definition and nature, and that exclusivity has worn the mantle of being “sacred” in one form or another in man’s existence. The “Term” is not one to be trifled with and if ever it comes to encompass homosexual unions too it will be hyphenated OR, heterosexual marriage will move off to another term where it will enjoy its original exclusivity.
Click to expand...
Why isn’t this an appeal to tradition (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)??)
 
MarcoPolo said:
Take for example just from the article in the OP. One proponent countered the bishop with “That’s insulting!” Take the nuns ad populum appeal to “polls” to determine truth. That goes hand-in-hand with the emotional: you want to be in with the in-crowd don’t you… Take the woman who justifies her son’s homosexual behavior which she knows is fine “because she’s his mother.” And therefore the bishop “needs to listen to mothers.”

None of these are rational defenses grounded on reason. They are all fallacious appeals to some emotional tug.
Click to expand...
But of course, those involved with the dialogue described in this article aren’t providing all of the arguments in favor of gay marriage. That one person can’t ably offer a solid argument on a topic doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility of a solid argument’s existence. Right?
 
gracepoole said:
But of course, those involved with the dialogue described in this article aren’t providing all of the arguments in favor of gay marriage. That one person can’t ably offer a solid argument on a topic doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility of a solid argument’s existence. Right?
Click to expand...
My point is you would be hard-pressed to find a reasoned argument anywhere else either. You’ll also find that the Church should “get with the times,” “hetero marriage is in bad shape already,” etc… The closest is probably the “why can’t 2 people love each other?” which at least opens the door to explain why marriage cannot “occur” without the proper ingredients, etc…
 
MarcoPolo said:
My point is you would be hard-pressed to find a reasoned argument anywhere else either. You’ll also find that the Church should “get with the times,” “hetero marriage is in bad shape already,” etc… The closest is probably the “why can’t 2 people love each other?” which at least opens the door to explain why marriage cannot “occur” without the proper ingredients, etc…
Click to expand...
I would think it would be much easier to just dismantle the argument *against *gay marriage.
 
gracepoole said:
I would think it would be much easier to just dismantle the argument *against *gay marriage.
Click to expand...
When you change the definition of what something is, it becomes difficult to dismantle the argument because, by definition, the rules have changed.

When procreation was taken out of the equation of marriage in our secular society, “gay marriage” had it’s opening because the definition of marriage changed when procreation no longer was a part of what makes a marriage.
 
gracepoole said:
Yes. It is.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s check to be sure. Does so-called gay marriage meet any of these criteria?
  • Inherently disordered desire? Check
  • Evil and immoral sexual acts? Yep
  • Violation of God’s teaching on marriage? Sure is
  • Breaking the natural law? Affirmative
  • Contrary to Church teaching in every way? Definitely.
Nope, not awesome.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
When you change the definition of what something is, it becomes difficult to dismantle the argument because, by definition, the rules have changed.

When procreation was taken out of the equation of marriage in our secular society, “gay marriage” had it’s opening because the definition of marriage changed when procreation no longer was a part of what makes a marriage.
Click to expand...
But again, as I asked back in post #26, why shouldn’t this be viewed as an appeal to tradition?
 
jwinch2 said:
Well, let’s check to be sure. Does so-called gay marriage meet any of these criteria?
  • Inherently disordered desire? Check
  • Evil and immoral sexual acts? Yep
  • Violation of God’s teaching on marriage? Sure is
  • Breaking the natural law? Affirmative
  • Contrary to Church teaching in every way? Definitely.
Nope, not awesome.
Click to expand...
The *conversation *is what’s awesome. Barring people from discussing their concerns about Church teachings is no way to persuade them to think differently.
 
gracepoole said:
But again, as I asked back in post #26, why shouldn’t this be viewed as an appeal to tradition?
Click to expand...
I think society at large agrees that it is viewed as an appeal to tradition. Most pundits seem to make a connection of what “traditional marriage” is. I can’t say I disagree with you on that.

It doesn’t change the fact that changing the definition makes winning the argument more difficult due to the new definition that has been added to the discussion.
 
I’m not sure I understand you here. “Homosexual union cannot be equated with marriage without equating marriage,” for example. I’m also not sure how your point in the final sentence above connects with the conversation.
Click to expand...
Homosexual union cannot be equated with marriage without equating marriage WITH HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS (of which, there is not an individual, or party, that has ever existed, that i would permit do that). It connects with the conversation AT THE END GAME. Play it out to the end right now. What is the end result of the argument? It is is that you can call two things the same all you’d like and never move one inch across the chasm that lies between them. Homosexual unions ARE A SELF-LIMITING, SELF-CREATING MINORITY, that relies on heterosexuality for 100% of its procreation, despite the gargantuantly Frankenstein lengths the whole has gone to to circumvent that.

Good or Bad, blessed or not (in this I reserve my opinion in ABSOLUTE deference to the ALMIGHTY), but do not equate me with that, to me it is abhorrent to my core, and you have no right, better that you attempt to build something valued in itself, then waste precious moments on attempting to piggyback on something of value that will slough-off your glomming-on in a more littered eventuality. Homosexuality did not spring up out of the ground in a recent event, it has existed throughout man’s existence, and has not achieved any lasting value in Societal Agreement other than in that the remainder still value the individuals involved as human individuals.

I’ve quoted Ayn Rand several times before. “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality”
 
Least said:
Homosexual union cannot be equated with marriage without equating marriage WITH HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS (of which, there is not an individual, or party, that has ever existed, that i would permit do that). It connects with the conversation AT THE END GAME. Play it out to the end right now. What is the end result of the argument? It is is that you can call two things the same all you’d like and never move one inch across the chasm that lies between them. Homosexual unions ARE A SELF-LIMITING, SELF-CREATING MINORITY, that relies on heterosexuality for 100% of its procreation, despite the gargantuantly Frankenstein lengths the whole has gone to to circumvent that.
Click to expand...
So…natural law, then? I’m just trying to understand your meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top