T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
please answer
- Status
L
Leela
Guest
Texas roofer,
I already did my best to answer, and you said I was ducking. I keep telling you that I don’t understand what you are saying. I really don’t. Maybe someone else can help translate.
Best,
Leela
R
ricmat
Guest
It seems to me that the government needs to acknowledge that there is a difference between a relationship which is focused on children, and one that is not.
The government already allows civil unions. The government has traditionally allowed marriage. To call them exactly the same thing, or to try to make them exactly the same thing is wrong IMO.
Yes, that’s why birth control is wrong in the eyes of the church. Yes, the government should outlaw it since it leads to more STDs, more breakups of families, less faithfulness of spouses, less perceived responsibility by the men involved when birth control fails, etc. The government should promote things which help families, not separate them.
There isn’t all that much data since these techniques are new, and there are few grown adults to study.
But the issue with such techniques is that it looks at a child as an object to be manufactured, to one’s own specifications. This diminishes the human person, and leads to eugenic abortions, or vanity abortions (e.g. wrong eye color, etc). One should accept any child as a gift. One MUST look at children in this light. People do not have an inherent right to have a child using any means necessary (technological in this case). Adoption is always a possibility.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
So i take it then that Ricmat and your arguments are derived from Natural Law theory?
If that’s the case - you have the issue of actually proving the existence of Natural Law (as Law implies the existence of Lawgiver). Generally, the whole concept in Western judiciaries tends to be out of fashion.
Furthermore, Leela is correct in asserting that
Whether a group of people violate Natural law obtains no consequences on your institutions. So why should it matter?
Ricmat - i’m a little confused.
So are you saying that two homosexual people who have no intention of rearing children and two heterosexual people who have no intention of rearing children should be placed in one category?
Whereas two other sets of homosexual and heterosexual people should be placed in another category?
R
ricmat
Guest
My arguments are primarily from Theology of the Body, which derives from Natural law.
I don’t follow you above.
By definition, homosexual people cannot with their union bring new life into the world. The concept of marriage does not apply in that case. Heterosexual people, whether they have the intent or not have the capability of bringing new life. Sometimes even without the intent, it happens.
I’ll come back later and try to address this in more detail. I’m off to some activities and won’t be back until tomorrow PM. I realize that my answers above are not satisfying
A
AndyF
Guest
Leela:
It’s really very simple.
Civil law is commanded by God to follow Divine law. If it doesn’t then it sins. If it doesn’t, we are commanded to turn away from it and refuse to follow.
Immediately it is evident that he doesn’t understand Christianity, therefore not an authority on it. Man doesn’t define Christian laws, Jesus does. So if he states the law is wrong the critique is targeted against Jesus.
Also, if he believes other religions are Divinely legit religions, then he makes the statement that Jesus was wrong, that he didn’t create the one true Church.
He doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, which puts in question the accuracy of anything else he wrote.
Andy
It’s really very simple.
Civil law is commanded by God to follow Divine law. If it doesn’t then it sins. If it doesn’t, we are commanded to turn away from it and refuse to follow.
Immediately it is evident that he doesn’t understand Christianity, therefore not an authority on it. Man doesn’t define Christian laws, Jesus does. So if he states the law is wrong the critique is targeted against Jesus.
Also, if he believes other religions are Divinely legit religions, then he makes the statement that Jesus was wrong, that he didn’t create the one true Church.
He doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, which puts in question the accuracy of anything else he wrote.
Andy
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
first I do not wish to represent Ricmat. I see great confusion from the SSA crowd on these issues, it would seem they start at the end and swim upstream which explains their frustration
I have no need to prove such, and that is the fundamental issue I have with Atheism as it seem to me they wish to employ Natural [Moral] Law while denying the existence of Natural [Moral] Law
“recognize” yes however there is a great potential of spill over damage or collateral damage if you will
collateral damage
Well you can say a person can marry a tree, and the government can agree however I would hope you can see that is not a real marriage? So again it is not who says what. Real marriages are unique to a man/woman pair.
L
Leela
Guest
This is where I think you and Ricmat have a very different view of government that I do. I don’t think it is the role of government to legislate every sort of moral. For example.it is moral to help old ladies with their groceries. Should there be a law enforcing it?
Morality is to be enforced by the coercive force of government, what room is left for virtue?
Do you want people to do right because it is right or because of fear of punishment?
Is it the government’s role to punish all sin?
Is anyone else reminded of the Taliban?
This isn’t a question of whether or not you think gays ought to be having sex. You are welcome to your views on the matter. It’s about whether the government ought to be legislating about such things.
Wow. I don’t know how many times I’ve had Lewis recommended or quoted to me. I finally read him, and now I’m being told that he doesn’t know anything.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
agreed
government cannot enforce morality however any government force not backed by morality is an abuseactually the role of government is to allow people to do right (act morally) without reprise
absolutely not
not me, btw remember the Taliban has government, which is significant if you answer the questions concerning governments and mother alone in control
Government is not your answer nor is civil unions, or gay marriage. Men cannot have babies, women cannot be fathers, and children know the difference.
T
Thales
Guest
Yes, I do assert this without evidence. There
probably is no way to accumulate accurate data on
this since homosexual couples raising children is
something of a recent aberration. As the trend of
this discussion is turning towards natural law, one
would have to say the situation aforementioned is
quite outside of it and therefore has very little precedence.
If you would indulge me for a moment, I want to
hypothesize that a child is best developed by the
dual influence of a male and female at different
stages of life. The female (mother) influence seems
most important during infancy and early
development stages, while the male (father)
influence probably is most needed during
adolescence and teen years for discipline and
instilling responsibility. These two distinct forces
need to shape the child into and adult.
Now, I know some will be disgusted that I make
clear distinctions between male and female nature,
but I’m working from a standard or an ideal. There
is inevitably a sliding scale where some men will be
effeminate and some females more masculine, but
can’t we just realize there is a standard. A standard
we can point to and say, this is what we see shows
the best results, what we should aspire to, for when
we deviate, things might work out, but that is the
exception not the rule.
Sorry for going so far off topic bringing up male and
female nature. Hopefully we can focus more on the
issue of standards and if the government is in the
business of supporting traditional standards shown
to yield the best results for the good of the society.
T
Thales
Guest
I’m with you on this one Leela. C.S. Lewis is an excellent source for Christian apologetics. He wasn’t Catholic but some say he was close to converting.
The excerpt you pulled from “Mere Christianity” can easily look like it was written by a modern pro civil union/ same-sex marriage person. I think you’re stretching his ideas of differentiating state and religious recognition of marriage to encompass a thing he never conceived of. I don’t want to say you’re using the quote out of context but you’re reaching a conclusion that’s missing some clear definition of marriage, or justification of homosexual union, or something to account for Lewis not having this new information.
L
Leela
Guest
I don’t buy for a second that somehow males are physically incapable of being as nurturing as females and that females are somehow physically incapable of teaching responsibility as well as males.
And as for natural law, as far as I can tell, natural law is just whatever you say it is.
L
Leela
Guest
I just think that Christians need to consider Lewis’s reasoning, not the fact that this “great man” was the one to say it:
“A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.”
Christians should not think that everything that Christians believe ought to be made law. You might think that it is immoral not to go to church every Sunday, but should it be illegal not to?
T
Thales
Guest
During the 1920’s in America the government changed the constitution to include an amendment banning the use and sale of alcohol. They did this because of the great damage out of control alcohol consumtion created to society. Because Mulsims concur with this belief would you then accuse them of having some hand in making the amendment happen? They would obviously support it since they believe in it, but they are not pushing their beliefs on other people because they agree with what the state has determined to be the best thing for society.
Lewis is making the point that Christians shouldn’t want the state to to create laws discouraging divorce because it is Christian, but because it is not good. This value judgement is implied. I don’t want the state to make laws based simply on religion either, it’s just no what thier purpose is. They need to be concerned with protecting and perpetuating society, if that means encompassing some elements of a religious system, be it Christian, Buddist, or Muslim, then that’s whta they should do.
Lewis is making the point that Christians shouldn’t want the state to to create laws discouraging divorce because it is Christian, but because it is not good. This value judgement is implied. I don’t want the state to make laws based simply on religion either, it’s just no what thier purpose is. They need to be concerned with protecting and perpetuating society, if that means encompassing some elements of a religious system, be it Christian, Buddist, or Muslim, then that’s whta they should do.
A
AndyF
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
Of course it does. One need not be Catholic for a marriage to be recognized by the Catholic Church. The Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages as valid: marriages between two non-Catholics, between two non-christians, between two atheists or Buddhists, or a combination of the above. In fact, under Church law, nearly any marriage is considered valid until proven otherwise.
The only difference for Catholics is that when a Catholic gets married, he or she is subject to Church law regarding marriage. Non-catholics may be validly married without being subject to Church law.
The Church does not however, recognize the marriage of two persons of the same gender because the two persons could not meet the basic requirements for validity, are not sexually complementary, and would be incapable of consummating the marital act, as well as being biologically incapable of openness to children.
(Similarly, the Church considers permanent, antecedent, and irreversible impotence or incapacity to complete the marital act on the part of either party to be an impediment to marriage, even for heterosexuals. Infertility is not an impediment, because it does not affect the capacity for marital intercourse.)
L
Leela
Guest
I agree that the Church has never called same-sex unions marriages, and I’m not suggesting that they should or that the government should. But apparently it has recognized and sanctified same-sex unions in the past.
colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html
"Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiated in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterward. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.
Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, “Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union”, invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.
The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together” according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.
Prof. Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ. "
J
JimG
Guest
I refer you to this review with comments on Professor John Boswell’s book.
J
JimG
Guest
In addition, I refer you to this article from the New Oxford Review, which discusses Prof. Boswell’s thesis in some detail.
J
JimG
Guest
Finally, here are some comments on Boswell’s thesis by a woman who actually participated in one of those ceremonies that he seems to think equivalent to homosexual marriages:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=4511&var_recherche=John+Boswell
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=4511&var_recherche=John+Boswell
- Status